MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110299605 · doi:10.1080/01942630902784746

Mobility Experiences of Adolescents with Cerebral Palsy

2009· article· en· W2110299605 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Palisano, Lorie Shimmell, Debra Stewart, John J. Lawless, Peter Rosenbaum, Dianne J Russell

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyCredibilityPsychologyApplied psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to describe how youth with cerebral palsy experience mobility in their daily lives using a phenomenological approach. The participants were 10 youth with cerebral palsy, 17 to 20 years of age, selected using purposeful sampling with maximum variation strategies. A total of 14 interviews were completed. Transcripts were analyzed for key concepts and themes. Credibility was established through triangulation of researchers and member checking. Participants viewed mobility as important for self-sufficiency. Youth who walked and also used wheeled mobility spoke of making choices. Safety and efficiency were important considerations when making choices. Some participants had mobility preferences at home that may not be safe, practical, or socially appropriate at school or in the community. Youth spoke of constantly adapting to situations that often reflected a lack of control over the environment. Youth indicated the need for constantly planning ahead to go places and do things. Most participants were dependent on others for transportation and expressed dissatisfaction with public transportation. Safe and efficient mobility to enable participation in daily activities appears to be the primary concern of youth with cerebral palsy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations64
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In PediatricsSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207