MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing and treating faecal incontinence in children

2009· review· en· W2332671831 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

VenueNursing Standard · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStoma care and complications
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFecal incontinencePsychological interventionMedicineMultidisciplinary approachStigma (botany)Multidisciplinary teamPsychologyNursingPsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faecal incontinence can have a profound effect on the lives of children and their families. Children who have faecal incontinence have a greater risk of being bullied at school, and parents are often frustrated and concerned by the associated social stigma. The social and psychological effects of faecal incontinence on the child can last for a long time. This article provides an overview of the causes of faecal incontinence, discusses assessment of bowel dysfunction and outlines current treatments. The article also highlights the importance of the nurse's role, as part of the multidisciplinary team, in assessing, treating and supporting children and their families to ensure that any interventions have the best chance of succeeding and to minimise the risk of relapse.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.377 · 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