MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1547110392

[Cranial-cerebral trauma after a traffic accident: perceptions of patients, family, physicians and professionals].

2004· article· en· W1547110392 on OpenAlexaff
Hélène Lefebvre, Diane Pelchat, Bonnie Swaine, Marie Josée Levert

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipRehabilitationIntervention (counseling)PerceptionNursingHealth careEconomic shortageMedicinePsychologyHealth professionalsFamily medicineMedical emergencyPhysical therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a study of medical care when road accident incidents result in traumatic brain injury (TBI). We investigated the personal perceptions of those involved in acute care episodes and subsequent rehabilitation. We conducted simultaneous semi-structured interviews with individuals who had sustained a TBI (8) and their families (8). We then conducted semi-structured individual interviews with the professionals (22) and physicians (9) who attended them. Results reveal the difficulties encountered by the different people involved, from the standpoint of the rehabilitation of both the person who with the TBI and their families, the relationships among the various actors, and the continuity of care. The results disclose the importance of including the family and the TBI casualty in the care process by endorsing their participation and by setting up suitable structures that prioritize a meaningful partnership among the individuals, families, physicians, professionals and health care organizations and in which each person can play a role as an agent in the care of the person with the TBI. An important element, which came out again in our results, is that the shortage of information provided to the families can jeopardize establishing a relationship of trust among the actors. Furthermore, many of the family members were upset that the health intervention was entirely focussed on the TBI casualty: none of the professionals were concerned with what the families were going through, either during the acute care or rehabilitation. Another major problem is lack of communication, not just amongst the professionals, but also between institutions which seem to function in isolation. Lack of resources, the limited availability of those that are offered, and social policies are also detrimental to the reintegration of the TBI individual into the community. Finally, many of the professionals reported that they had not been trained to assist families in this situation.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies→French-language works237,207→