MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011842219 · doi:10.1016/j.hcmf.2010.02.001

New British Columbia Guidelines for Supporting Sexual Health and Intimacy in Care Facilities

2010· article· en· W2011842219 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bethan Everett, Jenny Young, Marie Carlson, G Clements

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityResidenceAssisted Living FacilityNursingReproductive healthHealth careAssisted livingGerontologyGroup livingPsychologyMedicineGender studiesSociologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intimacy and sexual expression are an integral part of being human and of healthy living. However, this important aspect of well-being is often overlooked or avoided when a person enters a care facility such as a nursing home, group home, or assisted living residence. This article summarizes the new Supporting Sexual Health and Intimacy in Care Facilities Guidelines, which suggest ways of supporting healthy intimacy and sexuality in care facilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207