MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W99152703

Psychosocial aspects of caregiving to stroke patients.

2005· article· en· W99152703 on OpenAlexaff
Mina Singh, Jill I. Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialPsychologyFamily caregiversDistressEmotional distressCaregiver burdenClinical psychologyEmotional well-beingWell-beingLife satisfactionSocial supportEmotional supportCaregiver stressDementiaPsychiatryGerontologyMedicineAnxietySocial psychologyPsychotherapistDisease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A high percentage of individuals who have suffered a stroke will be cared for at home, primarily by aging spouses and/or relatives. Providing care to a family member with a chronic or life-threatening condition can be both emotionally rewarding and distressing for the care provider. The objective of this research was to test the factors associated with caregiver experiences. The findings of a convenience sample of 48 caregivers indicated that the higher the amount of caregiver burden, the greater the lifestyle impact and emotional distress for the caregiver. Caregiver satisfaction was not found to be associated with emotional well-being. The amount of support, both instrumental and social, did not improve the emotional well-being of the caregiver. The caregiver's sense of mastery was found to moderate the relationship between lifestyle impact and emotional well-being and also between caregiver satisfaction and emotional well-being.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→