Life habits performance of individuals with brain injury in different living environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about variations in social participation among individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) living in different environments. OBJECTIVE: To examine the social participation of individuals with moderate-to-severe TBI across various living arrangements. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-six individuals with moderate-to-severe TBI, living either in natural settings (e.g. home), intermediate settings (e.g. group homes or foster families) or structured settings (e.g. nursing home or long-term care facilities) and requiring daily assistance, were interviewed using the LIFE-H tool, which measures the level of difficulty and the assistance required to carry out life habits and resulting social participation. Participation in six categories of life habits pertaining to Activities of Daily Living and five categories pertaining to Social Roles were examined. RESULTS: The level of difficulty and the assistance required to carry out the life habits and the overall level of social participation were associated with living arrangements. Participation scores in Activities of Daily Living varied across living arrangements while Social Roles scores did not. CONCLUSION: Living arrangements (such as intermediate settings) may better support social participation in individuals with TBI. There is a need to further study the issue of living arrangements as they seem to facilitate the performance of life habits, which impacts the social participation of individuals with TBI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".