MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066953681 · doi:10.4236/ojtr.2014.21009

Current needs, the future of adolescents and young adults having sustained a moderate or severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and the potential of their social participation

2014· article· en· W2066953681 on OpenAlexaff
Katia Sirois, Normand Boucher

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyVisionLife satisfactionInterpersonal relationshipTraumatic brain injuryClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The general objective of this study is to identify the specific needs of youths who have suffered a moderate or severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their levels of life habit accomplishments. The secondary objective aims to identify how they view themselves in the future with regard to their life habits. Eighteen young persons with moderate or severe TBIs aged 14 to 20 completed questionnaires based on the Life-Habits questionnaire and elaborated on their current level of satisfaction and their visions of the future. Teenagers reported that maintaining good interpersonal relationships, being autonomous, fulfilling their responsibilities, warding off lone-liness, as well as being supported in their efforts to reach a satisfying response to their needs and concerns were their highest priorities. In order to increase their satisfaction related to life habits they suggest improving external factors, such as information concerning TBIs to their entourage. They see themselves as complete social participants in the future. Youths with moderate or severe TBIs identified their needs and envisioned their future to be like that of any other teenager and young adult. They hope to start a family and find a good job. They also identified strategies to improve their life habits.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.349
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Journal of Therapy and RehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207