MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Providing children with information about forthcoming medical procedures: A review and synthesis.

2007· review· en· W2006328441 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychology Science and Practice · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMAYDAY Fund
KeywordsMedical informationData scienceComputer sciencePsychologyInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information provision is an important aspect of preparing children for medical procedures. Parents and health professionals are often unsure of what to tell a child about a forthcoming medical procedure, how this information should be conveyed, and when information should be provided. The current article overviews the key theories underpinning information provision, such as self-regulation theory and schema/script theories. A theoretically derived Information Provision Model is presented, which is designed to integrate the various processes involved in information provision. The literature on the content, format, and timing of information provision is reviewed. The role that individual difference factors may play in how children respond to information is described. Recommendations for clinical practice are outlined, together with an indication of the level of empirical support for each recommendation.

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.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.383 · 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