MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1769901367 · doi:10.3233/tad-2007-19403

Stroke survivors' experiences of computer use at home

2007· article· en· W1769901367 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Disability · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)MedicinePsychologyGerontologyEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using computers can lead to increased independence and an improved social network for stroke survivors. However, little is known about how and why stroke survivors are using computers at home and the barriers they encounter. The objective of this study was to gain an understanding about the experiences of stroke survivors using home computers, including the reasons stroke survivors use the computer, how patterns of computer use have changed post-stroke and any barriers or enablers to computer use. A modified grounded theory approach was utilized. In-depth interviews and observations with six stroke survivors were conducted. The constant comparison method was used to analyze the data. Two main themes emerged from the data: connected through doing and occupational tensions and strategies. The first theme refers to the reasons why and what purposes the computer was used for, and the meaning of computer use, while the second theme highlights barriers to access to computer use and the attempts to overcome difficulties. The results of this preliminary study shed light on stroke survivors' use of computers at home, which may help guide occupational therapists working with this population.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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