The Evolution and Evaluation of a Therapeutic Recreation Cottage Program for Persons with Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute’s (University Health Network) Spinal Cord Rehabilitation Program (SCRP) Cottage Program, which is a unique outdoor experiential therapy (OET) intervention for persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). The outcomes illustrate the evolution of a therapeutic recreation (TR) program, and the development and implementation of a program evaluation framework. Over time, the SCRP Cottage Program has evolved from a small, one-day TR unstructured program to a large four-day structured inter-professional OET. For the evaluation component, a pre-posttest survey design was employed with participants with SCI who attended the cottage program (n = 14) and with a control group (n = 7). Cottage participants completed surveys on their goals and satisfaction with the program, while both groups completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale and the Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale. Positive affect and self-efficacy increased over time in cottage participants, but not for controls. Overall, participants were highly satisfied with the cottage program. The findings provide a model for the development and evaluation of an OET aimed at improving well-being following SCI.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".