MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968038569 · doi:10.1177/000841740006700306

A Review of a Major Driver Rehabilitation Centre: A Ten-Year Client Profile

2000· review· en· W1968038569 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Peter Klavora, Margaret Young, Ron Heslegrave

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsFord Motor Company (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographicsRehabilitationMedical recordSample (material)PopulationPerceptionMedicinePsychologyPhysical therapyDemographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driver Rehabilitation Services at Bloorview MacMillan Centre in Toronto provide important assessment and rehabilitation services for persons with various physical, neurological, and medical disabilities. Each year, the programme sees approximately 700 to 800 clients. Since 1985, the earliest year for which records are currently available, the program has seen approximately 7300 clients. The client information filing system consists predominantly of paper reports filed alphabetically by hand. A comprehensive computer database program was implemented in 1996 to organize and analyze client-driver records more efficiently. A systematic random sample consisting of 364 records (5% of the total population) was examined to describe the characteristics of the population within five major study categories: demographics, administration, medical information, visual and perceptual abilities and driving record.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207