Bibliographic record
Abstract
I was greatly honored when Jim Campbell invited me to be Guest Editor for this edition of JPO. I have known Jim since he was a student in Glasgow, and it gives me great pleasure to see the prominent position he now occupies within his profession in the USA. The subject I have chosen to feature in this edition is the management of the lower limb problems of children with cerebral palsy. Back in 1995, as a member of the Executive Board of the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics (ISPO), I was asked to organize a Consensus Conference on this topic, which was held at Duke University, Durham, NC, with Mike Shuch acting as the local organizer. The report of this event, which is available from the ISPO office in Copenhagen, was published early in 1997 and has proved a very popular publication. Among the many recommendations contained in it were two specific proposals for further action by ISPO. First, it was recommended that ISPO should organize multidisciplinary Instructional Courses to disseminate information on the state of the art in this area of clinical practice. To date, four courses have been held, in Toronto, Ljubljana, Dallas, and San Salvador, with further courses scheduled for 2002 and 2003. For this edition of JPO, I have asked two internationally respected practitioners, a rehabilitation physician and an orthotist, to bring you up to date on this topic from their personal professional perspective. The second recommendation of the Consensus Conference directed at ISPO derived from the observation that the majority of the published research on this topic was “seriously scientifically and experimentally flawed…ranging from non-randomized current cohort comparisons to case reports.” It was suggested that one of the reasons for this situation was the absence of a generally accepted standard method of recording the status of and nature of the various treatments provided to this group of patients. It was therefore proposed that ISPO should undertake the development of such a “protocol.” I have been personally responsible for the project that was initiated by ISPO to address this objective, and in the third of the “invited” contributions to this edition, I have attempted to describe for you the result of this activity. The management of cerebral palsy is one of the areas of clinical practice in which a team approach is absolutely essential. I sincerely hope that this multidisciplinary “symposium” will assist you, the orthotic professional, to optimize your important role as a member of that team.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".