MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6889076057 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.5980766

Holistic Health Practices of Rural Thai Homebound Older Adults: A Focused Ethnographic Study

2022· other· en· W6889076057 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolistic healthEthnographyPsychological interventionHealth careQualitative researchCulturally appropriateRural areaRural health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction:Supporting independent functioning of homebound, chronically ill older adults (HOAs) is a major concern across cultures. In Thailand, actions HOAs take to remain independent and maintain their holistic (mental, physical, and spiritual) health is understudied. Therefore, we explored self-care practices used by rural Thai HOAs to maintain their independence.Methods:We used a focused ethnographic approach, recruiting HOAs, their families, and community members from a rural area in Southern Thailand. Data were analyzed using content analysis.Results:Sixteen HOAs and 23 family/community members participated. Three themes emerged: self-care to stay healthy, sharing life with family and society in a positive way, incorporating both folk and modern medicine to maintain health. Factors facilitating holistic health practices were supportive family network, Thai cultural beliefs, community strength and support, and health care services.Discussion/Conclusions:These findings may help health care professionals develop interventions supporting holistic health practices of Thai HOAs to remain independent.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207