The psychosocial adjustment of the paraplegic : a study of reference groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an exploratory study to enquire into the psychosocial factors which affect the adjustment of the paraplegic. It is an individual thesis written as part of a group investigation on Paraplegia. The study was carried out by five students of the Maritime School of Social Work in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Social Work. \nThe twenty-three subjects of the study were paraplegics registered at the Canadian Paraplegic Association, Atlantic Division, in September 1968. Only those who were over sixteen years of age at the time of disability, had been disabled for two years or more, and were residents of the Halifax-Dartmouth and County areas were considered. A questionnaire was administered by personal interview to obtain information pertinent to the five individual studies. This particular study dealt with reference groups. \nIt was found that paraplegics use as a criterion of comparison socio-economic and general health factors rather than the use of the legs. A majority of paraplegics had a positive image of their own membership group as compared to specific reference groups, and there was the expected relationship between a good adjustment and a positive self-image.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".