Barriers to Driving and Community Integration After Traumatic Brain 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
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relations among driving status, perceptions of barriers to the resumption of driving, and community integration outcomes after traumatic brain injury (TBI). DESIGN: Correlational research using logistic and multiple regression analyses, analyses of variance, and covariance. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-one survivors of TBI, 6 months to 10 years postinjury. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Driving status postinjury, Community Integration Measure, and Craig Hospital Assessment and Reporting Technique. RESULTS: Perceptions of barriers to driving provided unique information in predicting subjective and objective indices of community integration, even after accounting for other potentially pertinent variables (eg, injury severity, social support, negative affectivity, and use of alternative transportation). Moreover, survivors who had not resumed driving showed poorer community integration than did those who had resumed driving. Social barriers such as directives against driving from significant others accounted for the most variance in survivor driving status. Decisions to cease driving were more common among those with no formal driving evaluation than among survivors who had been evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Significant others have substantial influence on post-TBI driving outcome. The findings highlight the importance of independent driving to community integration, as well as psychoeducation of survivors and their families.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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