Young Children's Perceptions of Physicians Wearing Standard Precautions Versus Customary Attire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine if young children have a preference regarding whether physicians wear standard precautions attire. METHODS: One hundred ninety-seven children, aged 4 to 8 years, and their parents were recruited from the pediatric emergency department of a tertiary care center. Two sets of 4 photographs-the same man in formal attire, a white coat, greens, and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) standard precautions attire, and the same woman in formal attire, a white coat, greens, and SARS standard precautions attire-were shown to the children and their caregiver. Both were asked which physician's attire he or she liked the most and which he or she liked the least. Parents filled out a questionnaire regarding their experiences in the pediatric emergency department during the SARS epidemic. RESULTS: The children selected the physician in SARS standard precautions attire as most liked 17.5% of the time and least liked 53.3% of the time. The parents selected the physician in SARS standard precautions attire as most liked 0% of the time and least liked 94.8% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians wearing standard precautions attire while working in the pediatric emergency department need to be aware that this attire may negatively impact their relationship with pediatric patients 4 to 8 years of age.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".