‘Reserve is no place for a wheelchair’: Challenges to consider during wheelchair provision intended for use in First Nations community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the post-rehabilitation experiences of First Nations persons with spinal cord injury who returned to live on reserve using a wheelchair. METHOD: A phenomenological approach with purposive sampling was employed to recruit participants with spinal cord injuries who used a wheelchair and lived in a First Nations community. Data were collected using a short demographic questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. RESULTS: Most participants returned to live on reserve in homes that were not wheelchair accessible and only two had home assessments completed. Nearly all either moved to modified homes or had homes purpose built for them after waiting considerable periods of time to relocate. However, only one of these homes was considered completely accessible. Participants identified other challenges they coped with including the effects of other medical conditions, negotiating reserve terrain and accessing cultural activities. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that policy changes are required regarding the allocation of funding to ensure accessible on reserve housing for First Nations persons with a SCI. Further recommendations were made regarding the cultural content of health professional curricula as well as the need for health professionals to liaison more closely with Aboriginal health care workers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".