Examining the Impact of Social Support on Psychological Well-BeingAmong Canadian Individuals With COPD: Implications for GovernmentPolicies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a significant respiratory disease and is globally ranked as the third leading cause of death. In Canada, the direct healthcare costs associated with COPD are estimated to be $1.5 billion annually. This study utilized quantitative analyses to examine the impact of specific dimensions of social support, namely, guidance, reliable alliance, reassurance of worth, attachment, and social integration within a clinically identified population of individuals with COPD who exhibit symptoms of depression and anxiety. The study was based on the Social Provisions Theory and stress-buffering hypothesis, utilizing large-scale population data from Statistics Canada's 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) Mental Health component. On a national scale, individuals were more likely to report a decreased sense of belonging to a group of friends (social integration) and struggle to depend on others in stressful times (reliable alliance) while experiencing symptoms of anxiety and depression. These findings underscore the potential benefits of integrating peer support, socialization initiatives, and caregiver training into clinical programs designed for individuals with COPD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".