MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6925837441 · doi:10.20381/ruor-18584

Factors that influence heart failure self-management of community dwelling individuals

2005· article· en· W6925837441 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureQualitative researchQualitative propertyPrimary careSet (abstract data type)PerceptionMEDLINEHealth careData collectionHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heart failure (HF) affects 350,000 Canadians, and is the third most common primary diagnosis for a hospitalization in Canada. People with HF experience periods of stability interspersed with exacerbations requiring hospitalization. During the fiscal year 2000-01, 85,679 patients were admitted to hospitals in Canada accruing a cost of over $1 billion per year for inpatient hospital services alone. These statistics indicate that in addition to the considerable influence on the lives of many Canadians, the burden of the problem is significant on the current and future health care system. This thesis examines factors that influence HF self-management as well as the profile characteristics of community dwelling individuals. The results of a systematic review and findings of a study that combines a mixed method approach including a quantitative secondary analysis, and a set of qualitative telephone interviews are presented. The qualitative data focuses on one factor, perception of social support, and how it relates to HF self-management. Finally, an integration of the information is presented. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)→Same topicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology→French-language works237,207→