Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It ain't what we don't know that gets us into trouble. It's what we know for sure that ain't so. --Mark Twain The year 2008 represents a new world for visual impairment in the United States and Canada. The demographics of vision loss have changed radically in the last several decades. Today, the greatest number of people with visual impairments are not children or young adults; rather they are seniors with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), who outnumber younger visually impaired adults and children by wide margins. According to the National Eye Institute, people 80 years of age and older currently make up 8 percent of the population, but account for 69 percent of those with visual impairment and blindness, largely from AMD. Indeed, macular degeneration is the cause of the majority of all visual impairment and blindness in Americans. This matters because much of what we know for sure about visual impairment and vision rehabilitation just ain't with macular degeneration. Why? Two key reasons. DIFFERENT LIFE EXPERIENCE Seniors are a population distinct from all others, including younger and middle-aged adults. Just as children have their own medical specialty--pediatrics--so seniors have theirs--geriatrics. Just as kids are not little adults, seniors are not wrinkled adults. They are unique physiologically, medically, and psychosocially. They require different rehabilitation strategies and approaches, different visual and functional devices, and different teaching approaches and methods for effective rehabilitation. Age-related physiological changes in hearing, balance, agility, recovery time, learning patterns and memory make part of the difference. Seniors often rely on their vision to compensate for these other age-related losses, so that when vision is lost too, they are particularly vulnerable to age-specific functional declines and dangerous falls. This situation does not preclude them from being successful in vision rehabilitation, but it does mean that rehabilitation professionals must understand how to address these conditions and assume the responsibility for doing so, or else partner closely with other health care professionals who can address them. When working with seniors, successful vision rehabilitation professionals may need to modulate the pitch and pacing of their voices, adapt their teaching practices to maximize learning, and take the physiological differences of seniors into account. Clients with low vision may need support canes, rather than long canes, to maintain safe balance when walking. They may need contrasting shower bars, contrasting color mats, and adaptive lighting in order to remain safe in the bathroom. With seniors, these considerations are not side issues but are an integral part of vision rehabilitation practice. Seniors also present with a range of medical conditions that shape vision rehabilitation practice, possibly including a history of minor strokes, diabetes, early-onset Parkinson's, arthritis, hypertension, heart disease, osteoporosis, chronic joint or back problems, reduced range of motion, under- or overdosing on medications, and clinical depression as a result of vision loss. Vision rehabilitation professionals must recognize the symptoms of these conditions, understand their interplay with vision loss in compromising function, and address them as an intrinsic part of vision rehabilitation. Seniors are also at a different life stage, with different skills and resources from younger and middle-aged adults, often with other profound losses in their lives--the loss of a spouses, siblings, jobs, or even homes as they move to retirement or assisted living facilities distant from their familiar neighborhoods. Successful vision rehabilitation requires understanding and incorporating these physical, psychological, and cultural differences that sculpt seniors' experiences of vision loss and influence their approach to rehabilitation. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».