MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W105087592

Children with Acquired Brain Injury: A Silent Voice in the Ontario School System.

2004· article· en· W105087592 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sheila Bennett, Dawn Good, Dawn Zinga, John Kumpf

Bibliographic record

VenueExceptionality education Canada · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcquired brain injuryPsychologyTraumatic brain injuryInjury preventionMedical educationMedicinePoison controlPsychiatryMedical emergencyRehabilitation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The leading cause of death and injuries in school age children is acquired brain injury (Savage & Wolcott, 1994). Each year approximately 1 in 450 school age children and 1 in 200 adolescents/young adults suffer an injury as a result of some form of acquired brain injury. Approximately 27,000 students in the Ontario school system have acquired brain injury (Segalowitz & Brown, 1991). For these students accessing support services for educational purposes can be a challenge. Within the province of Ontario, there currently exist five categories within which students can be identified as exceptional, however acquired brain injury is not included within these five. Furthermore, regular classroom teachers are rarely provided with any training at either the preservice level or at the practicing level that addresses the educational need of children with acquired brain injury. Therefore, children with acquired brain injury are usually poorly identified and understood in the educational system leading to inadequate supports and programming for both the student and the teacher. The aim of this paper is to highlight the difficulties such students have and to suggest solutions to improve the quality of education provided for these students. Language: en

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExceptionality education CanadaSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207