MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034778934 · doi:10.3138/physio.60.3.246

Availability and Structure of Ambulatory Rehabilitation Services: A Survey of Hospitals with Designated Rehabilitation Beds in Ontario, Canada

2008· article· en· W2034778934 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Michel D. Landry, Laura Passalent, Cheryl Cott

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Canada · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsRehabilitationAmbulatoryMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy CanadaSame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207