Geriatric Rehabilitation Patients’ Perceptions of Unit Dining Locations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eating together is promoted among hospitalized seniors to improve their nutrition. This study aimed to understand geriatric patients' perceptions regarding meals in a common dining area versus at the bedside. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative study was conducted. Open-ended questions were asked of eight patients recruited from a geriatric rehabilitation unit where patients had a choice of meal location. RESULTS: Eating location was influenced by compliance with the perceived rules of the unit, physical and emotional well-being, and quarantine orders. Certain participants preferred eating in the common dining room where they had more assistance from hospital staff, a more attractive physical environment, and the opportunity to socialize. However, other participants preferred eating at their bedsides, feeling the quality of social interaction was poor in the dining room. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' experiences of, and preferences for, communal dining differed. If the benefits of communal dining are to be maximized, different experiences of this practice must be considered.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it