MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275371297 · doi:10.1093/geront/gnv685

Low Vision Rehabilitation, Age-Related Vision Loss, and Risk: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis: Table 1.

2016· review· en· W2275371297 on OpenAlexafffund
Debbie Laliberté Rudman, Mary Egan, Colleen McGrath, Dorothy Kessler, Paula Gardner, Judy King, Christine Ceci

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Gerontologist · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRehabilitationGeriatric rehabilitationCentralityVision rehabilitationPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTable (database)MedicinePhysical therapyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.356 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe GerontologistSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207