Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the number of young people with medical complexity increasing, an increasing number must navigate the transition to adulthood. This transition, in part, involves a situational transition in which young people and their families must access new services in the adult system. OBJECTIVES: To explore how societal ideologies, communities, and organizations represent the foundation of barriers to access to services. RESEARCH DESIGN: The discussion in this paper, framed within a social justice perspective, outlines barriers to access to services at the societal and community levels including societal ideologies, differences in philosophies of care in pediatric and adult care, physical environments, and availability of services. Ethical Considerations: Since this is an exploratory discussion paper, no ethical approval was required. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: Based on analysis of the literature from a social justice perspective, it is suggested that the adult health care and social service systems do not provide the supports and services necessary to empower young people and their families to achieve their goals and maintain their health and quality of life. It is, thus, an ethical issue that the transfer from pediatric to adult services is occurring in the absence of appropriate services. Recommendations at the individual, community and policy levels highlight how nurses can address this ethical issue to promote more equitable access to services.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".