MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136598120 · doi:10.1123/mcj.15.2.285

Sensorimotor Integration for Functional Recovery and the Bobath Approach

2011· review· en· W2136598120 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMotor Control · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyMotor functionMotor learningTask (project management)Movement (music)Motor controlNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bobath therapy is used to treat patients with neurological disorders. Bobath practitioners use hands-on approaches to elicit and reestablish typical movement patterns through therapist-controlled sensorimotor experiences within the context of task accomplishment. One aspect of Bobath practice, the recovery of sensorimotor function, is reviewed within the framework of current motor control theories. We focus on the role of sensory information in movement production, the relationship between posture and movement and concepts related to motor recovery and compensation with respect to this therapeutic approach. We suggest that a major barrier to the evaluation of the therapeutic effectiveness of the Bobath concept is the lack of a unified framework for both experimental identification and treatment of neurological motor deficits. More conclusive analysis of therapeutic effectiveness requires the development of specific outcomes that measure movement quality.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.239 · 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