The meaning of transitioning from rehabilitation to a physically active lifestyle following a spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the meaning people with spinal cord injuries give to physical activity and recreation participation as they make the transition from the protected environment of hospital rehabilitation to the reality of returning to their homes and communities. The experiences of 4 individuals between 15 and 24 years of age who had sustained spinal cord injuries within the previous five years were captured using the phenomenological methods of semi-structured individual interviews, focus group interviews, photographs, and field notes. Rimmer’s (1999) model of health promotion for people with disabilities combined with Peters (1996) model of disablement provided the conceptual framework for the study and facilitated the interpretation of the findings. The participants indicated that physical activity was a very important component to living a psychologically, socially and physically healthy lifestyle following a spinal cord injury. A thematic analysis revealed three themes: (a) as my body heals, (b) learning to be me, and (3) getting back to life. The importance of physical activity in maintaining a healthy lifestyle following a spinal cord injury was reflected in stories of physical activity as a component of hospital rehabilitation, the importance of physical activity during the transition from the hospital to the challenges of returning home, and finally, engagement in community based physical activity. A gap in the continuity of physical activity opportunities during the transition from in-hospital rehabilitation to the return to the community was identified.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".