Availability and Structure of Ambulatory Rehabilitation Services: A Survey of Hospitals with Designated Rehabilitation Beds in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the degree to which ambulatory physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT), and speech language pathology (SLP) services are available in hospitals with designated rehabilitation beds (DRBs) in Ontario, and to explore the structure of delivery and funding among services that exist. METHODS: Questions regarding ambulatory services were included in the System Integration and Change (SIC) survey sent to all hospitals participating in the Hospital Report 2005: Rehabilitation initiative. RESULTS: The response rate was 75.9% (41 of 54 hospitals). All hospitals surveyed provide some degree of ambulatory rehabilitation services, but the nature of these services varies according to rehabilitation client groups (RCGs). The majority of hospitals continue to deliver services through their employees rather than by contracting out or by creating for-profit subsidiary clinics, but an increasing proportion is accessing private sources to finance ambulatory services. CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitals with DRBs provide some degree of ambulatory rehabilitation services. Privatization of delivery is not widespread in these facilities.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".