Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation is to study the lived experiences of female postsecondary students diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease and/or irritable bowel syndrome. METHODS: Nine women between the ages of 18 and 26 years were recruited to participate in this study. Participants completed an informed consent form and background questionnaire before completing a semi-structured one-on-one interview. This interview explored the lived experiences of these individuals in relation to condition management. RESULTS: Three salient themes that emerged from the data included (1) it can add to my life; (2) why me: my condition runs my life; and (3) I'm doing the best I can with what I have. The salient theme of I'm doing the best I can with what I have, the theme addressed in this article, was subdivided into adaptive and maladaptive coping behaviors. Reasons for the use of these behaviors included to avoid triggers or flare-ups/harmful effects, to achieve instant relief/pleasure, to respond to environmental pressures, and to become accustomed to dealing with the everyday hassles of their conditions. CONCLUSION: Community health nurses may become part of the solution to help women with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome find more adaptive coping behaviors. Other implications are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".