Extending Classroom Learning Borders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through the provision of education and training, the Caregiver Training Workshop (CTW) pilot study aimed to advance knowledge about in-person educational interventions for primary family caregivers aiding ill adults (18 years of age and over) at home. The target population was community-dwelling chronic disease caregivers, fourteen of whom participated in the workshop/pilot study in September and October 2019. The sessions were offered once a week, over five weeks—each session lasting two hours. The goal of the CTW pilot study was to measure any relationship between caregiver burden levels and the study’s multi-component curriculum and course design, and to obtain participant feedback about the content and structure. Curricular topics were selected based on a review of the literature. The methodology selected was mixed-methods and convergent pretest–posttest design. Data was collected at three points in time. The pre-workshop data collection instruments consisted of the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers (BSFC) in long form and a mixed demographics form. Post-workshop instruments consisted of the BSFC (second time) and open-ended questions evaluating the program. Three-months post workshop conclusion, the instruments consisted of the BSFC (final time) and a mixed questionnaire regarding the program’s impact. The reduction in caregiver burden was not statistically significant; however, burden scores from three of the 14 caregivers improved over the study period. Analyzing the qualitative data, as well as viewing caregiver burden through self-efficacy theory, offer insights as to why. Many caregivers expressed interest in maintaining contact with each other post workshop completion. This supports research indicating that some caregivers are interested in maintaining social connections throughout their care recipients’ illness trajectories.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".