MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091693113 · doi:10.12968/bjcn.2003.8.3.11095

A pilot study of user’s experiences of urinary catheter drainage bags

2003· article· en· W2091693113 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda Fraczyk, Helen Godfrey, R. C. L. FENELEY

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Community Nursing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrinary catheterDrainageCatheterUrinary systemIndwelling catheterQuarter (Canadian coin)Intensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the wealth of literature focused on the management of people living in the community with long-term indwelling urinary catheters, little attention has been paid to their impact on daily life. In a pilot study, a purposive sample of people with long-term indwelling urinary catheters were sent a questionnaire asking about their indwelling urinary catheter, method of drainage and impact of the catheter drainage bag on their daily life. Nearly one-quarter of respondents stated that wearing a drainage bag had a major impact on their normal daily living. The study also highlighted a number of methodological issues that need to be addressed in future research.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Community NursingSame topicUrinary Tract Infections ManagementFrench-language works237,207