MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Perceived Influence of a Targeted Group Exercise Program on the Well-Being of Women Living with Multiple Sclerosis: A Qualitative Study

2013· review· en· W1978226074 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brittany VanRuymbeke, Margaret A. Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaWilfrid Laurier University
KeywordsFacilitatorMedicineQualitative researchFocus groupPerceptionMultiple sclerosisPhysical activityGerontologyActivities of daily livingClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyPhysical therapySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common neurological condition affecting young adults in Canada; according to the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, in 2013, 3 Canadians are diagnosed daily. Many individuals living with MS experience its debilitating physical symptoms as well as a number of psychological, social, and emotional issues. Although much research has been conducted on the positive effects of physical activity in MS, few qualitative studies have been used to explore this issue in depth. The purpose of this study was to identify the effects of physical activity on the lives of those living with MS and to determine their perception of their overall well-being with a focus on physical, emotional, and social determinants of health. These women identified that being in a group atmosphere and having a competent and motivating program facilitator are key aspects of any exercise program. Likewise, the idea that everyday activities and tasks can be used as a means of physical activity also was mentioned by many participants. As this body of literature continues to grow, patients will have greater access to the stories of others and be able to learn strategies that have been helpful to others in the past. It is expected that in time this information may assist in improving the lives of both men and women who are living with this condition.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207