Women with spinal cord injuries underwent a process of discomfort, moving towards comfort, and comfort in dealing with their changed bodiesCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
K Yoshida Dr K Yoshida, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; karen.yoshida@utoronto.ca How do women with spinal cord injuries (SCIs) feel about living with their changed bodies? Secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews using a modified grounded theory method. 6 cities in Ontario, Canada. 15 women, 18–60 years of age, who had incomplete or complete quadriplegia or paraplegia. Women were interviewed for 2 hours on their perceptions of rehabilitation and recommendations for improving the process. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded; 20 codes related to 2 themes (self/self-image/self-concept and change with SCI) were extracted for secondary analysis using memoing, integration of codes, and concept development. A 3-phase process reflected the experiences of women living with physical body changes due to SCIs. (1) Discomfort . Initially, women felt “ill at ease” with body changes and struggled to integrate their new body image with their sense of self. Early stages of rehabilitation were associated with generally negative emotions about self, particularly because of the challenge of accepting a new physical appearance and lifestyle adjustments. Loss …
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".