MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099900371 · doi:10.3928/0098-9134-20021101-05

Bathing: Pleasure or Pain?

2002· article· en· W2099900371 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gerontological Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathingShiveringDementiaPleasureMedicinePsychologyPhysical therapyAnesthesiaPsychotherapistDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bathing creates some of the highest levels of discomfort in the lives of individuals diagnosed with dementia. The present study measured the frequency of 14 agitated behaviors during bathing in 15 elderly residents with dementia residing in a continuing care center. Each resident was observed for four sessions of two different bathing methods, the conventional tub bath and a modification of the bed bath, known as the Thermal bath. The summed frequencies of all agitated behaviors was significantly less for the Thermal bath than the tub bath. This overall effect was greater in men than women and in one particular behavior, shivering. The results suggest that for individuals with dementia the Thermal bath offers a viable alternative to the conventional tub method. Further research may clarify other parameters, such as cost effectiveness and long-term effects of the use of non-rinse cleansers for elderly individuals.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.212 · 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