Bibliographic record
Abstract
Another group to consider when defining UI is administrators and managers in LTC facilities. According to Budgeting monies for UI products, linens, and staffing to manage toileting, soiling, and skin breakdown is of primary concern to LTC administrators and managers In my previous experience as a Director, Resident Care and site manager in an www.intechopen.com Elderly Women and Urinary Incontinence in Long-Term Care 91 urban, LTC setting in Eastern Nova Scotia, Canada, discussions of UI frequently occurred in relation to the economic burden of managing the problem. Procedures and strategies were designed to maintain costs of products used for UI, with little consideration given to comfort or appropriateness of interventions from the resident's perspective or the overall impact on QoL. Some healthcare providers and caregivers in LTC may define UI in terms of the demanding workload and the timely investments dedicated to physical management of changing incontinent products, voiding schedules, and soiled linens and clothing changes Furthermore, UI maybe viewed by some healthcare professionals as low on the priority list of healthcare needs, and not a prudent expenditure of precious time and energy (Bayliss & Salter, 2004). In an attempt to reduce or eliminate UI, it has been documented that some healthcare providers and caregivers in LTC spend productive time implementing fluid management strategies and double incontinent products worn in an attempt to deal with the issue of UI Physicians on the other hand, may define UI in regards to assessment, diagnosis, medical and/or surgical technologies and management, and pharmacological treatments This definition incorporates the philosophy of controlling and/or curing UI for those individuals experiencing the condition and tends to medicalize UI. Conversely, elderly women experiencing UI in LTC may subjectively define UI with respect to psychological, social, economic or physical implications and contexts (DuBeau et al.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".