Differences in social participation between individuals who do and do not attend brain injury drop-in centres: A preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare social participation for individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) ≥1 year post-injury who attend brain injury drop-in centres (BIDCs) with individuals who do not attend but were identified as potentially benefitting from attending. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with 23 individuals attending BIDCs and a comparison group of 19 individuals not attending. KEY OUTCOME MEASURES: Community Integration Questionnaire, Social Provisions Scale and Adult Subjective Assessment of Participation. MAIN RESULTS: The comparison group was found to consist of 12 participants who stated that they would attend a BIDC ('Yes sub-group') and seven participants who stated that maybe they would attend a BIDC but for the most part were too busy ('Maybe sub-group'). The BIDC group was found to have statistically significantly higher levels of social participation than the comparison group and particularly the 'Yes sub-group'. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide support that attendance at BIDCs may benefit social participation. Future directions for research are suggested.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".