Knowledge mobilization regarding activity and exercise after spinal cord injury: a Canadian undergraduate curriculum scan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a curriculum scan of Canadian undergraduate university programs to determine the relative emphasis placed on the activity and exercise after spinal cord injury (SCI), in the context of physical disability studies. METHOD: Eighty-three Canadian Universities were evaluated for courses discussing: (i) general information about SCI, (ii) physical activity and exercise after SCI, (iii) general information about other physical disabilities and (iv) physical activity and exercise for such disabilities. Online course calendars (2009) were scanned, and their accuracy was verified by instructors or administrative assistants. RESULTS: The curriculum scan revealed 113 courses that discuss physical disability. Seventy-four of these courses cover information regarding SCI, 47 of which include content relating to activity and exercise. In comparison, 104 courses discuss other physical disabilities, 76 of which cover material related to activity and exercise. Further, the 47 courses that cover activity and exercise after SCI are only offered in 22 Canadian Universities, and only 31 are mandatory for a degree. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of future healthcare professionals lack exposure to material regarding activity and exercise after SCI during their undergraduate education. This curricular oversight likely contributes to ineffective exercise strategies and the relative inactivity of the SCI population. [ IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: • Individuals with spinal cord injury are relatively inactive due to the many physical, psychological and social barriers they face regarding activity and exercise participation.• Effective knowledge mobilization regarding activity and exercise after SCI to future healthcare providers is an essential step in promoting participation.• This undergraduate curriculum scan showed that students lack exposure to issues regarding the activity and exercise after SCI in Canadian Universities.• The lack of effective knowledge mobilization in this area likely contributes to the low levels of activity and exercise participation in the SCI population.]
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".