Being bedridden was a slow process influenced by interactions with the environment, nurses, and social tiesCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Zegelin Dr A Zegelin, Private University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany; zegelin@uni-wh.de What are the experiences of people who become bedridden? Grounded theory. Nursing homes and personal residences in Witten, Germany. 32 people who were 62–98 years of age (59% women), had chronic illnesses, were bedridden for 2 weeks to 4 years, and had had the option during this time of being able to get up. 30-minute semistructured interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using a grounded theory approach. Phase 1: instability. All patients reported problems while walking before they became immobile (eg, “shaky,” “dizzy”). Some used a walking stick or a rollator when leaving the house. Most patients only moved around inside the house, supporting themselves on furniture, and all had fallen at some stage. Phase 2: incident. All patients had a hospital stay and/or a fall, which reduced their mobility. Patients remained passive and withdrew to their beds, not knowing where else to go. Transfer situation . How patients were transferred affected how often they got up. If carers seemed weak, incompetent, or complaining or if 2 carers were needed to make the transfer, patients reduced their demands. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".