MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1897607134

Promoting rehabilitation for stroke survivors.

2013· article· en· W1897607134 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bernard Gibbon, Jo Gibson, Catherine Elizabeth Lightbody, Kate Radford, Caroline Watkins

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)RehabilitationAffect (linguistics)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke does not only affect physical health; it also has an impact on psychological health and many other aspects of survivors' lives. Nurses have a central role in stroke rehabilitation. This article discusses rehabilitation, the role of the nurse, psychological care, secondary prevention and life after stroke. It focuses on resuming driving and returning to work as these are particularly important for the one-quarter of stroke patients who are aged under 65.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.007

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→