PERCEPTION OF THE SOCIAL SUPPORT FOR ADOLESCENTS WHO UNDERGO CORRECTIVE BACK SURGERY FOR SCOLIOSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to compare the perception of social support upon admission and 6 weeks postoperation of adolescents aged 13 to 19 years (M = 14.7 years), who underwent corrective back surgery for scoliosis. Twenty-two French-speaking participants were found from three different hospital centers located in two large cities in the Quebec province. Data were collected using the French version of Interpersonal Relationships Inventory (IPRI). No significant difference was observed between the results obtained on admission and those obtained 6 weeks later for the global measures of social support available. Nevertheless, analysis of data at the two time points showed a significant difference with regard to intimacy of adolescents. Adolescents reported feeling more invaded in the postoperative period (6 weeks after the surgery) than on admission at the hospital. These results serve to point out the nursing care involvement as well as the surgical techniques and ambulatory care that reduce hospitalization time. The results raise questions about the nurse's role in the adequate support for adolescents as well as the impact of reduced length of hospitalization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".