A case study of a community-university multidisciplinary partnership approach to increasing physical activity participation among people with spinal cord injury
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, increasing emphasis has been placed on the importance of health behavior change research being conducted in partnership with the beneficiaries of the intended research outcomes. Although such an approach should enhance the relevance of the research and the uptake of findings, it raises challenges regarding how best to cultivate and sustain meaningful partnerships to accomplish these goals. In this paper, we provide a case study of SCI Action Canada-a multidisciplinary team partnership approach to increasing physical activity among adults with spinal cord injuries. The research and knowledge mobilization phases are described. In addition, preliminary indicators of partnership success and key informant interviews are presented to highlight the challenges and opportunities associated with using a community-university partnership approach to influence positive health behavior change.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it