MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068680167 · doi:10.1080/j148v26n02_03

Low Vision: A Preliminary Exploration of Its Impact on the Daily Lives of Older Women and Perceived Constraints to Service Use

2007· article· en· W2068680167 on OpenAlex
Janna MacLachlan, Debbie Laliberté Rudman, Lisa Klinger

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

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Geriatrics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow visionCoping (psychology)Vision rehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)RehabilitationPsychologyActivities of daily livingGerontologyService delivery frameworkOccupational therapyIndependence (probability theory)Service (business)Physical medicine and rehabilitationApplied psychologyOptometryPhysical therapyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapistMarketingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although low vision in later life has the potential to negatively impact on all areas of occupational performance and quality of life, estimates suggest that less than one-tenth of older adults with low vision currently use low-vision rehabilitation services (LVRS) designed to increase occupational performance. This phenomenological study examines the lived experience of 4 older adults with low vision who are not using LVRS. Themes relate to maintaining daily life and independence, coping with vision loss, and avoiding LVRS. Gaps in current low-vision service provision and suggestions for future service delivery are identified.

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)0.000
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 score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.342 · 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