MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965659167 · doi:10.1258/1357633011936200

Low-bandwidth, Internet-based videoconferencing for physical rehabilitation consultations

2001· article· en· W1965659167 on OpenAlexaff
Edward D. Lemaire, Yvon Boudrias, Gayle Greene

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Telemedicine and Telecare · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsTerry Fox Research InstituteCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVideoconferencingTelemedicineTelerehabilitationMedicineTelehealthRehabilitationPhysical therapyThe InternetOrthoticsPatient satisfactionMedical emergencyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMultimediaNursingHealth careComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-bandwidth, Internet-based videoconferencing was used to provide physical rehabilitation consultation services for eight community hospitals. Videoconferencing and file transmission used a PC and modem. A separate telephone line was used for voice. Over 21 months, 47 physical rehabilitation consultations were completed for communication disorders, foot care, gait problems, orthotics, prosthetics, arm weakness and wheelchair prescription. Consultations were approximately 40 min long. Clinician questionnaires were completed by 47 individuals. While more than 80% of the questionnaire responses supported the telemedicine approach, remote clinicians rated their satisfaction higher than did the specialists. Client questionnaires were completed by 24 individuals (a response rate of 51%). All clients were comfortable with and had confidence in the teleconsultations.

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)0.010
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations85
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Telemedicine and TelecareSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207