MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1571570594 · doi:10.26443/ijwpc.v1i1.9

Doing 'Technological' Time in a Pediatric Hemodialysis Unit

2014· article· en· W1571570594 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hilde Zitzelsberger, Patricia McKeever, Adrienne Chambon, Kathryn Morgan, Karen Spalding

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Whole Person Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemodialysisUnit (ring theory)Theme (computing)Embodied cognitionEthnographyIntervention (counseling)MedicinePsychologySociologyNursingComputer scienceMathematics educationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study objectives: For Canadian children living with end-stage renal disease, hemodialysis is a common intervention and usually received in a specialized ambulatory hospital-based unit. Although children spend up to 12 hours a week receiving hemodialysis, little is known about how they perceive and respond to hospital-based hemodialysis. The study’s purpose is to describe and interpret the children’s embodied situatedness in the temporal, spatial and technological regimes and relations of a pediatric hospital-based hemodialysis unit.Methods: An ethnography was undertaken at a Canadian urban pediatric hospital. Time, space, and technology are viewed as significant interrelated aspects of the hemodialysis unit and the unit is conceived as nested in the broader contexts of the children’s everyday lives. The theoretical framework merges concepts of human embodiment and contemporary human geographical perspectives and philosophy of technology.Results: The dominant theme emerging from the study findings is the notion of the children doing ‘technological’ time. The pervasiveness and reach of hemodialysis technologies upon the children profoundly textures their situations, shapes their perspectives, evaluations and expectations and impacts how they are seen by caregivers in the unit.Conclusions: Crucial changes in practices are essential to envision ways to create with children an overall positive place that merges and balances technological care with child focused care. The inclusion of children’s views is critical because many settings typically occupied by children have been designed and designated by authoritative or professional adults as “places for children” (Rasmussen, 2004, p. 155) without children being involved. Exploration of the findings may contribute to the ways that healthcare providers, funders, administrators and policy-makers can facilitate the inclusion of children in the design and care provision of hemodialysis units as well as other high-tech hospital-based units.ReferencesRasmussen, K. (2004). Places for children – children’s places. Childhood, 11(2), 155-173.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

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
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Whole Person CareSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207