MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing and Addressing Inappropriate Sexual Behavior in Brain-Injured Clients

2004· review· en· W2009469123 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara Lawrie, Carol Jillings

Bibliographic record

VenueRehabilitation Nursing · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual behaviorPsychologyMeaning (existential)Health careQuality (philosophy)NursingService (business)Social psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inappropriate sexual comments and behaviors from clients with brain injuries can be frustrating, awkward, and time consuming for the nurses who are caring for them. Understanding the meaning of these comments and behaviors, as well as receiving direction concerning ways to handle the situation can help nurses overcome their frustration and improve the quality of nursing care. This article examines potential underlying causes of inappropriate sexual behavior, explains the behaviors from client, family, staff, and organizational perspectives, and begins to look at ways to respectfully and sensitively address the behaviors using a model and framework developed by the Sexual Health Service (SHS) at Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre (VHHSC), in British Columbia, Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.372 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRehabilitation NursingSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207