Participation patterns of children with acquired brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the participation patterns of children and youth with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) and to compare these patterns with typically-developing peers. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-five children with ABI completed the Children Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE) to measure their participation diversity and intensity in outside-of-school activities (i.e. recreational, physical, social, self-improvement and skill-based activities). Results were compared to 354 typically-developing peers. ANOVA analyses were performed while controlling for age and gender. RESULTS: Similar to typically-developing children, individuals with ABI proportionally participated mostly in social and recreational activities and were less likely to engage in skill-based activities. However, level of intensity and diversity within each activity type was different between the two groups. Children with ABI participated in fewer activities and were less frequently involved in all the CAPE's activity types except for intensity in social activities. These differences, characterized by small-to-medium effect sizes, were not dependent on the child's age and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Participation of children with ABI is restricted in comparison to their typically-developing peers even in a sample where minor injury is predominant. Future studies might address additional factors that potentially affect participation, e.g. child's preferences and family function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".