Enhancing Physical Activity Guidelines: A Needs Survey of Adults With Spinal Cord Injury and Health Care Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine preferences of people with spinal cord injury (SCI) and health care professionals (HCP) regarding the content and format of a SCI physical activity guide to support recently released SCI physical activity guidelines. Seventy-eight people with SCI and 80 HCP completed a survey questionnaire. Participants with SCI identified desired content items and their preferences for format. HCP rated the helpfulness of content items to prescribe physical activity. All content items were rated favorably by participants with SCI and useful by HCP. The risks and benefits of activity and inactivity, and strategies for becoming more active, were rated high by both samples. Photographs and separate information for those with paraplegia versus tetraplegia were strongly endorsed. These data were used to guide the development of an SCI physical activity guide to enhance the uptake of physical activity guidelines for people with SCI. The guide was publically released November 11, 2011.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".