MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036672312 · doi:10.1097/htr.0b013e3181a0b15a

Factors Affecting Leisure Participation After a Traumatic Brain Injury

2009· article· en· W2036672312 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryPsychologyLeisure activityLeisure timePhysical activityPhysical therapyMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore leisure participation by people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and reasons underlying changes after the trauma. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six individuals with mild to severe TBI. MAIN MEASURE: Leisure Profile, a semi-structured questionnaire measuring involvement in leisure activities before and after TBI (frequency of activities, degree of interest, and desire to modify one's leisure activities), attitudes toward leisure, and difficulties that might influence leisure activities (impairments and environmental obstacles). RESULTS: Leisure participation was greatly disrupted after TBI, with 92% of the participants reporting a reduction posttrauma. Less severe injuries, more time since the injury, and the presence of social obstacles in the environment were positively correlated with leisure participation. Motor impairments had a negative impact on leisure participation. CONCLUSION: TBI has a significant negative effect on leisure participation. Leisure activities should be evaluated and included in a therapy program designed to promote reintegration into society and work.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.330 · 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