Evaluation of a Modified Yoga Program for Persons 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
Yoga is a promising mind-body intervention for improving health and well-being in a number of clinical populations. At this time, there is no evidence on the benefits of yoga for persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). Twelve participants with SCI were recruited into a mixed-methods program evaluation of an eight-week modified yoga program. At baseline and exit, participants were evaluated on pain, fatigue, psychological factors, and mindfulness with self-report questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Five participants completed the baseline and exit assessments. Significant changes were not found on any of the outcome scores. Qualitative analysis revealed main themes regarding expectations, benefits along emotional, mental, and physical domains, program satisfaction and recommendations. Participants reported highly enjoying the yoga intervention and the qualitative data indicated a number of therapeutic benefits (i.e., decreased stress, pain relief). Yoga appears to be a promising therapeutic recreation intervention post-SCI and a larger clinical trial is recommended to conclusively investigate both its objectively and subjectively measured benefits.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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