Information needs and information sources of individuals living with spinal cord injury
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Access to health information is important for the well-being of people living in the community after spinal cord injury (SCI). In order to design appropriate information interventions, it is critical first to understand the information sources typically used. The goal of this study therefore is to identify the information-seeking practices of this group. SAMPLE AND METHODS: A sample of 207 individuals living in the community following traumatic spinal cord injury were surveyed regarding their ongoing information needs and practices for seeking information. RESULTS: The results reveal that respondents have unmet information needs, despite the fact that they typically access information through a variety of channels. SCI specialists are the most commonly used source, although they are viewed as relatively inaccessible. By contrast, the Internet (used by a relatively high proportion of respondents) is viewed as comparatively accessible, although there are some concerns about the quality of information found there. CONCLUSIONS: These survey results point to the need for an information source that is accessible and delivers high quality information. Although respondents use a variety of information sources, none meets this ideal profile. Information professionals should consider this gap in the design of information interventions.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.090 |
| 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 it