Low Vision Rehabilitation, Age-Related Vision Loss, and Risk: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis: Table 1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Given the centrality of risk in geriatric rehabilitation, it is critically important to attend to how conceptualizations of risk shape research, policies, and rehabilitation practices. This paper presents a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) of literature addressing risk and low vision rehabilitation for older adults with age-related vision loss (ARVL) to identify key guiding assumptions regarding risk and discuss implications for what gets attended to, and not attended to, within research and rehabilitation. DESIGN AND METHODS: This CIS combined guidelines proposed by Dixon-Woods and colleagues (2006-Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 35) and Alvesson and Sandberg (2011-Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36, 247-271; 2013-Constructing research questions: Doing interesting research. London: Sage). The iterative review process involved 3 steps: literature search and selection, data extraction, and syntheses to identify boundary assumptions. The dataset included 83 research and practice description articles. RESULTS: Older adults with ARVL were constructed as "at risk" for various adverse outcomes, particularly dependency and self-harm, and as posing risks to others. An epidemiological approach to risk based in assumptions aligned with a technico-scientific perspective was dominant, with risk conceptualized as an embodied, individual-level phenomenon that is to be determined and managed through objective screening and expert monitoring. IMPLICATIONS: Key concerns include a lack of: attention to the tensions created when rehabilitation research and practice attempt to promote independence while simultaneously reducing risk, incorporation of aging adults' perspectives on risk, and analysis of environmental factors that shape risks. Research that starts by valuing older adults' experiences and attends to context can inform rehabilitation practices that support health-promoting, risk-taking, and facilitate collaborative approaches to risk management.
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 | 0.111 | 0.295 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".