MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074076938 · doi:10.1080/09638280701618588

Continuity, transition and participation: Preparing clients for life in the community post-stroke

2007· article· en· W2074076938 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl Cott, Rose Wiles, Rachel Devitt

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationService delivery frameworkStroke (engine)PsychologyCommunity integrationMeaning (existential)Quality of life (healthcare)Community-based rehabilitationService (business)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyPsychotherapistBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To examine issues of continuity and transition facing clients as they return to life in the community following stroke and the role of rehabilitation in this process. KEY FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS: The sudden onset of disability following a stroke represents a major disruption to the continuity of a person's life experience. Rehabilitation has an important role in the transition from the non-disabled to the disabled state however current rehabilitation services and outcomes post-stroke focus on functional recovery rather than on a return to meaningful roles and activities and pay little attention to the transition from the non-disabled to the disabled self. Although some current rehabilitation models address the importance of involvement in a life situation, they do not adequately address issues of the role of the environment, the nature of community, the importance of meaning and choice when thinking about life situations, and change in abilities across the life course. CONCLUSIONS: Models of rehabilitation service delivery need to move to a chronic disease management model that incorporates outcomes that are meaningful to clients, and not the assumed needs or outcomes as defined by rehabilitation professionals.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations195
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207