MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2152721692 · doi:10.1017/s0714980810000127

Provision of Rehabilitation Services in Québec Following Stroke: A Comparative Survey Conducted by Postal Questionnaire

2010· article· fr· W2152721692 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Claude Vincent, Line Robichaud, Johanne Desrosiers, Sylvie Belleville, Louise Demers, Chantal Viscogliosi, Isabelle Deaudelin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalUniversité de SherbrookeCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRehabilitationStroke (engine)QuestionnairePsychologyMedicineFamily medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapySociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Il n’existe pas de données sur l’offre de service en réadaptation pour les aînés ayant subi un accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC) selon le type de régions. Une enquête a permis de documenter l’offre des services de réadaptation proposés à la clientèle aînée de 65 ans et plus ayant subi un AVC. Au total, les répondants de 295 ressources localisées dans trois régions sociosanitaires du Québec ont complété un questionnaire postal décrivant les services offerts en termes de type d’interventions (associées à neuf aptitudes et à sept domaines de participation sociale) et de type de services (évaluation, réadaptation active, maintien). Les résultats indiquent que l’offre de services de réadaptation proposée par le plus grand nombre de ressources aux personnes âgées ayant subi un AVC concerne les aptitudes motrices et les déplacements. De façon inattendue, au niveau d’interventions associées à quatre aptitudes et à deux domaines de participation sociale, l’offre de services en réadaptation active apparaît plus élevée dans les régions incluant des zones rurales qu’en région métropolitaine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→