MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using the Experiences of Adults Burned as Children to Address Sexuality in Pediatric Burns

2006· article· en· W2064957303 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Forbes-Duchart, G McMillan-Law, Dana Nicholson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsManitoba Beekeepers' AssociationHealth Sciences CentreDeer Lodge Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityMedicineCoping (psychology)Qualitative researchPersonalityClinical psychologyPsychologySocial psychologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexuality, including body image, is an important aspect of the total personality, present throughout life. Literature on the effects of pediatric burns on sexuality is limited and inconclusive, as are resources to deal with this issue. Sexuality has been inconsistently addressed with our pediatric burn patients. The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of adults burned as children with respect to sexuality, explore coping strategies used while growing up, and seek advice on methods to address sexuality with pediatric patients. This qualitative study used a phenomenological approach to understand the life experiences of adults burned as children. After ethics approval, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a maximum-variation purposive sample of 6 females and 3 males with a mean burn age of 9.37 (range 1–15) years, mean current age of 28.22 (range 18–45) years, and mean TBSA of 35.33 (range 5–90) percent. Five of the participants have been involved in survivor support programs. The interview schedule and study procedures were developed in consultation with an advisory group of the study population. Interviews were audio taped and professionally transcribed. Data were analyzed by coding and organizing into common themes; data collection ended at theme saturation. Strategies to enhance reliability and validity included separate coding by the three interviewers, member checking and an analysis audit by an independent researcher.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.358 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207