MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127180599 · doi:10.3109/01942638.2011.631100

Social Participation of Adolescents with Cerebral Palsy: Trade-offs and Choices

2011· article· en· W2127180599 on OpenAlexafffund
Debra A. Stewart, John J. Lawless, Lorie Shimmell, Robert J. Palisano, Matthew Freeman, Peter Rosenbaum, Dianne J Russell

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCerebral palsyPsychologyPsychological interventionPerceptionQualitative researchData collectionInterpretative phenomenological analysisInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthSocial engagementDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologyRehabilitationSociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on the findings of a qualitative study about the experiences and perceptions of adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP) in relation to social participation. A phenomenological approach was used to interview 10 adolescents with CP, 17 to 20 years of age, selected using purposeful sampling. An iterative process of data collection and analysis resulted in four themes about social participation. The themes of experience, barriers, and supports, and tradeoffs supported the current view of participation as a dynamic interaction between person and environment. The fourth theme of making choices described the unique challenges facing adolescents with CP in terms of deciding what was most important and meaningful to them now and in their future. Health care professionals can support adolescents as they develop the capacity to make their own decisions during the transition to adult living by ensuring that assessments and interventions address social participation.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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