MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Children With Chronic Continence Problems

2004· review· en· W2331027187 on OpenAlexaff
David V. Erickson, Lynne Ray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Dysraphism and Malformations
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)Work–life balancePsychologyNursingMedicineDevelopmental psychologyWork (physics)Clinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For families who are raising children with myelomeningocele, bowel and bladder incontinence presents unique challenges for everyday life. The Parenting and Childhood Chronicity model is used to describe the work of raising a child with a chronic condition in 6 areas, including medical care, adapted parenting, dealing with the systems, caring for siblings, maintaining relationships, and personal coping (keeping yourself going). This article provides an overview of the physiologic and developmental challenges inherent in this neural tube defect and illustrates the work that is involved in the child's care and the challenges of maintaining a balance in family life. Clinical implications are discussed, including the setting of appropriate expectations, providing parents with accurate information, ensuring that a focus on continence is not at the expense of other important aspects of the child's functioning, and supporting parents in their interaction with the school system. The medical team, consisting of nursing, urology, nephrology, and psychology working together, can be a strong support for families.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence NursingSame topicSpinal Dysraphism and MalformationsFrench-language works237,207