MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008132717 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.08.006

Exercise and Sport for Persons With Spinal Cord Injury

2012· review· en· W2008132717 on OpenAlex
Kathleen A. Martin Ginis, Sophie Jörgensen, Jessica Stapleton

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialSpinal cord injuryMedicinePhysical therapyPromotion (chess)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical fitnessMental healthPhysical activityGerontologySpinal cordPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review article provides an overview of the evidence that links exercise and sports participation to physical and psychological well-being among people with spinal cord injury. Two aspects of physical well-being are examined, including the prevention of chronic disease and the promotion of physical fitness. Multiple aspects of psychosocial well-being are discussed, including mental health, social participation, and life satisfaction. The review concludes with future research recommendations and a discussion of challenges and opportunities for using exercise and sports to promote health and well-being among people living with spinal cord injury.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.308 · 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