MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W86513393

The Kool Kidney: an educational program for school-aged children.

2002· article· en· W86513393 on OpenAlexaff
Kasey Wallis, D Rocan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsBrandon Regional Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)KidneyMedicineNephrologyDialysisArtificial kidneyPeritoneal dialysisMedical educationIntensive care medicineInternal medicineSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing prevalence of renal failure and increasing demands on the health care system for renal replacement therapies, we felt a program to promote early education on kidney disease with strategies to prevent kidney failure was much-needed. The Kool Kidney project is an educational tool developed to help educate grade five students on the basic anatomy and physiology of the normal healthy kidney. The project is based upon some theory discussion as well as some "hands-on" fun. In a typical presentation, a nephrology nurse or nurses will go into the classroom and discuss the kidney. The presentation is broken down into three major parts: PART ONE: Has the presenter discuss the normal basic anatomy of the kidney as well as a simplistic overview of the function of the kidney. PART TWO: Is a brief discussion of the realities of kidney failure in language understood by children, as well as a discussion on dialysis, both hemo and peritoneal, and transplantation. PART THREE: Is the fun part. In this segment the children are allowed to come up and get some hands-on experience. We have harvested some kidneys from pigs and had them dissected and preserved by the lab at our hospital. The children are allowed to pick up and examine a kidney. To date we have presented the "Kool Kidney" to six schools and approximately 200 students. The presentations have been a fun learning experience for the students and the presenters. It is hoped that if we can alert one child to a potential renal complication and have the child seek medical attention early, or if we can prevent one unnecessary injury, the program will have been a total success.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.005

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare→French-language works237,207→