MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285902342 · doi:10.1177/0008417415608653

Opening doors to participation of youth with physical disabilities: An intervention study

2015· article· en· W2285902342 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Dana Anaby, Mary Law, Annette Majnemer, Debbie Ehrmann Feldman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Occupational therapyPsychologyGerontologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: While participation in leisure activities is beneficial to youth's health, little is known about effective intervention strategies to promote participation. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of environment-based interventions on participation of youth with physical disabilities. METHOD: Six adolescents ages 14 to 17 years participated in a 12-week intervention aimed at removing environmental barriers and coaching parents. An interrupted time series design was employed and a systematic replication of the intervention effect was examined across three individualized participation goals and across participants (17 goals overall). Goal performance was measured repeatedly using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and analyzed using visual inspection and a celeration line approach. FINDINGS: A clinically significant improvement in performance scores (M = 4.5, SD = 1.77) was observed across all 17 goals, and a statistically significant treatment effect was replicated in 13 goals (76%). IMPLICATIONS: Findings support the effectiveness of environment-based interventions in promoting youth participation, but larger studies are required.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations66
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207