Shaping future directions for incontinence research in aging adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Center for Gerontological Nursing, School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, as part of the John A. Hartford Foundation's Geriatric Nursing Initiative, convened an invitational nursing research summit onincontinence in St. Paul, Minnesota on October 16-18, 2003. Objective: To identify new approaches for conducting urinary and fecal incontinence research in aging adults, identify strategies for reinvigorating and better positioning nursing research on incontinence, and develop recommendations for attracting new nurse investigators to incontinence research and facilitating their research training and mentorship. Method: Forty-seven researchers, project officers, clinician leaders, doctoral students, and consumer advocates from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Japan, Norway, and Australia attended a 1½ day conference involving trigger talks, reaction papers, and small and large group discus‖: sions around broad thematic areas on incontinence research. Recommendations with suggested strategies were derived from the discussion groups. Results: Participants identified issues related to each of the summit objectives and discussed potential strategies to overcome these challenges. Twenty-one recommendations were derived: eleven recommendations focused on new approaches to incontinence research; eight on reinvigorating and repositioning nursing research on incontinence; and two on attracting and mentoring new investigators. Conclusions: The summit model used effectively engaged an international cadre of researchers and clinicians in stimulating discussions that yielded the identification of strategic directions for conducting and funding incontinence research and strategies for reinvigorating and repositioning nursing research on incontinence.
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 | 0.175 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".