MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Learning to Live with Osteoporosis: A Metaphoric Narrative

2012· article· en· W4400610523 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Richard Hovey, Robert C. Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Hermeneutics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)NarrativeMetaphorInterpretation (philosophy)OsteoporosisPsychologyTransformative learningPerspective (graphical)AestheticsEpistemologyMedicinePsychotherapistDevelopmental psychologyPhilosophyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A philosophical hermeneutic research approach was chosen to explore the meaning of living with osteoporosis, a degenerative bone disease. Osteoporosis creates the possibility of living with disabling physical, emotional, and social conditions for the person diagnosed with this serious health condition. The purpose of this study was to interpret the narratives authored by twelve participants living with osteoporosis. The findings provided in this article offer a perspective of how one’s shifting sense of self-renewal was expressed through osteoporosis-specific metaphors, which explicated a transformative process of how one learns to live well with osteoporosis. Three metaphors were identified and interpretively named the shattering, the surrendering, and the dance. An analysis, interpretation, and discussion of these narratives was performed. Consideration was given to how an interpretation of these findings, through metaphor, may benefit others living with osteoporosis, and how those diagnosed in the future can benefit from shared understandings and conversations about the meaning of living with osteoporosis. As people endeavored to make meaning of living with their illness, metaphors provided a useful common ground and invitation for discussion, story-telling, and the development of supportive relationships – all implemented as educative methods to positively transition the impacted persons’ physical, emotional, and social traumas toward the possibility of self-renewal.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.018
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied HermeneuticsSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207