MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975863963 · doi:10.1097/won.0b013e3182a219a1

Ostomy Care and Management

2013· review· en· W1975863963 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stacy Recalla, Kim Ēnglish, Rishma Nazarali, Samantha Mayo, Debbie Miller, Mikel Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStoma care and complications
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIleostomyGuidelineMedicineTask forceMEDLINESkin careNursingGeneral surgeryFamily medicineSurgeryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The frequency of ostomy surgery in Canada is not known, but it is estimated that approximately 13,000 ostomy surgeries are performed annually in Canada. This systematic review incorporates evidence for the assessment and management of colostomies, ileostomies, and urostomies, as well as the peristomal skin. The review was completed as part of a best practice guideline document generated by a task force appointed by the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations72
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence NursingSame topicStoma care and complicationsFrench-language works237,207