Adults experienced a long term indwelling urinary catheter as living with the forces of flowing water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wilde MH. Urine flowing: a phenomenological study of living with a urinary catheter. Res Nurs Health2002 Feb; 25 : 14 –24 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: What are the experiences of adults living with indwelling urinary catheters? Phenomenology. Central New York, USA. 14 adults (age range 35–95 y, 64% women) with long term indwelling urinary catheters (duration 6 mo to 18 y) who lived in the community. The primary reason for wearing the catheter was urinary retention caused by disease conditions, including multiple sclerosis, cerebrovascular accident, enlarged prostate, and spinal cord injury. 7 participants were interviewed once, and 7 were interviewed twice. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. The transcripts were analysed to identify themes. Written summaries of the data were clarified and verified with participants. Living with a urinary catheter was found to be like living with the forces of flowing water. The following themes emerged. Vulnerability: the force of flowing water was a metaphor to describe the similarity of the movement of … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DResearch%2Bin%2Bnursing%2B%2526%2Bhealth%26rft.stitle%253DRes%2BNurs%2BHealth%26rft.aulast%253DWilde%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%2BH.%26rft.volume%253D25%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D14%26rft.epage%253D24%26rft.atitle%253DUrine%2Bflowing%253A%2Ba%2Bphenomenological%2Bstudy%2Bof%2Bliving%2Bwith%2Ba%2Burinary%2Bcatheter.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1002%252Fnur.10020%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11807916%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/nur.10020&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11807916&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000173628200003&link_type=ISI
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".