MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095790135 · doi:10.1016/j.alter.2014.03.006

Creating a rehabilitation living lab to optimize participation and inclusion for persons with physical disabilities

2014· article· en· W2095790135 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Eva Kehayia, Bonnie Swaine, Cristina Longo, Philippe S. Archambault, Joyce Fung, Dahlia Kairy, Anouk Lamontagne, Guylaine Le Dorze, Hélène Lefebvre, Olga Overbury, Tiiu Poldma

Bibliographic record

VenueAlter · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)RehabilitationAssistive technologyIndependent livingPsychologyGerontologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMedicineComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an on-going multidisciplinary and multisectorial strategic development project put forth by the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of greater Montréal (CRIR) in Quebec, Canada and its members, in collaboration with a Montréal “renovation-ready” shopping mall, local community organizations, and local, national and international research and industrial partners. Beginning in 2011, within the context of the Mall as Living Lab (MALL), more than 45 projects were initiated to: (1) identify the environmental, physical and social obstacles and facilitators to participation; (2) develop technology and interventions to optimize physical and cognitive function participation and inclusion; (3) implement and evaluate the impact of technology and interventions in vivo. Two years later and working within a participatory action research (PAR) approach, and the overarching WHO framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), we discuss challenges and future endeavors. Challenges include creating and maintaining partnerships, ensuring a PAR approach to engage multiple stakeholders (e.g. people with disabilities, rehabilitation and design researchers, health professionals, community members and shopping mall stakeholders) and assessing the overall impact of the living lab. Future endeavors, including the linking between research results and recommendations for renovations to the mall, are also presented.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations26
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlterSame topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207