MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043370665

Struggles of resiliency: women negotiating interpersonal relationality following burn injury

2016· dissertation· en· W7043370665 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStrongUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health Research CouncilNational Endowment for the Arts
KeywordsContext (archaeology)DistressingPoison controlDistressInterview
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burn injury is considered a distressing and traumatic injury often leading to psychological disturbances such as depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and body image dissatisfaction. At the same time, the literature also suggests that people demonstrate surprising resiliency when dealing with their burn injury. How women who have experienced burns understand their injury and what it means to them to be a resilient, is largely ignored in the burn literature. This study addressed these shortcomings by exploring narratives from thirteen women, recruited from a regional burn center, who experienced a burn injury of up to 30% of their total body surface area (TBSA). Two interviews were conducted with each participant. The first interview employed a photo elicitation technique whereby photographs taken by the participant of her life with a burn injury were used to elicit stories in the context of the interview. The second interview was conducted using a semi-structured interview schedule developed to investigate experiences and understandings of distress and resiliency. The interview transcripts were analyzed using narrative analysis in order to explore how women constructed stories about distress and resiliency following burn injury. The findings show three main struggles the women faced in negotiating resiliency which all pertained to relational tension, that is, relationships with others. The three struggles of resiliency identified in the study are 1) feeling as though the body was public, 2) deciding how to share their burn experience with others, and 3) accepting support from others while maintaining independence. The findings of this study are discussed in the context of a relational theory named self-silencing which delineates how women behave socially to maintain relationships by inhibiting self-expression. Findings are also discussed relative to current research in the areas of burn injury and resiliency.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207