Evidence-Based Practice and Setting Basic Standards for Stroke Rehabilitation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a concern that the consistency of care in stroke rehabilitation appears to vary significantly among practice settings within Canada. Based upon an evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation, a group of physiatrists from across Canada agreed to some basic standards for stroke rehabilitation. The following standards were deemed to be critical to providing effective stroke rehabilitation care: early assessment and quick access to specialized interdisciplinary rehabilitation, appropriate intensity of therapies, availability of outpatient therapy, appropriate community supports, and careful attention to secondary prevention of stroke. Providing stroke rehabilitation care consistently within these standards remains a challenge, particularly given the potential initial costs, despite significant improvements in patient outcomes and quality of life. Nevertheless, these standards should be the expectation of stroke patients, essentially forming a stroke rehabilitation "bill of rights."
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 | 0.082 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".