MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151621234 · doi:10.1177/0883073814533422

Promoting Leisure Participation as Part of Health and Well-Being in Children and Youth With Cerebral Palsy

2014· article· en· W2151621234 on OpenAlexaff
Keiko Shikako‐Thomas, Niina Kolehmainen, Marjolijn Ketelaar, Maureen K. Bult, Mary Law

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)RehabilitationPsychologyPromotion (chess)Health promotionYouth participationHealth careHealth professionalsMedicineNursingPsychiatryPublic healthPolitical sciencePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participation in leisure is a human right and is central to the health of children and youth. The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth supported a change in thinking about what outcomes are most relevant in the context of children's health and places participation as one of the constituent elements of health. Participation is also a fundamental rehabilitation and health promotion outcome for children with cerebral palsy as identified by youth, parents, and health professionals. Several studies have identified individual and environmental factors related to participation in leisure; new studies are now determining the best interventions to promote participation. This article summarizes recent findings and proposes important topics for neurologists to consider in exploring leisure pursuits with children with cerebral palsy and their families and in working with rehabilitation professionals to promote engagement in leisure opportunities as part of integrated care.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations69
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207