MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972218355 · doi:10.1080/014608600265192

EXPERIENCE OF TEENAGERS BORN WITH CLEFT LIP AND/OR PALATE AND INTERVENTIONS OF THE HEALTH NURSE

2000· article· en· W1972218355 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Chapados

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineNursingNursing Interventions ClassificationPediatric nursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to describe and understand the experiences of teenagers with cleft lip and/or palate. The human ecology approach of Bronfenbrenner (1979) was chosen as a basis for this study. From this perspective, the living environment of teenagers with cleft lip and/or palate was considered, and as such, qualitative research from an ethnographic standpoint was conducted. The data were collected by semistructured interviews and recorded on magnetic tape. Ten teenagers, between 15 and 17 years of age, were chosen and consulted while undergoing therapeutic treatment and surgery in a cleft lip and/or palate clinic. The results of this study indicate that teenagers born with this congenital malformation experience various physical, functional, or interactional problems throughout their development. To improve this situation, nursing care has been developed to enable the nurse to act within the multidisciplinary team treating cleft lip and/or palate cases, thereby allowing the teenager to develop in an environment that offers a better quality of life.

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)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations25
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Comprehensive Pediatric NursingSame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207