MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Earthquakes and Rehabilitation Needs: Experiences From Bam, Iran

2007· article· en· W167502197 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gholam Reza Raissi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Cord Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersReseau canadien de recherche respiratoire
KeywordsRehabilitationMedicinePsychosocialPopulationSpinal cord injuryFocus groupNursingFamily medicineMedical emergencyPhysical therapyPsychiatrySpinal cordEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In December 2003, a devastating earthquake destroyed Bam and surrounding areas in Iran, leaving many people with residual deficits and disabilities, of which approximately 240 patients had spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: As an independent volunteer working in outpatient clinics, I visited the patients as part of a mobile team and set up a short educational course in spinal cord medicine. RESULTS: I visited 34 patients with SCI in the first 3 months. Eight months after the disaster, I visited 54 patients with SCI, 29 female (53.7%) and 25 male (46.3%). Postdisaster problems were identified, including need for accurate data collection, identification of patients' conditions, attention paid to psychosocial issues, ethical dilemmas, and research needs. CONCLUSION: Disaster preparedness for earthquakes should include first aid and injury prevention, coordination of relief efforts, basic education and medical care, and short-and long-term rehabilitation needs. The major focus of rehabilitation medicine specialists' should be education of the general and professional population toward integrating the concept of rehabilitation.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations36
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Cord MedicineSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207