Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric Physical Therapy is indeed an international journal. Our journal is the official publication for four international partners: The Dutch Association for Pediatric Physical Therapy, Physiotherapia Paediatrica, Pediatric Physiotherapy New Zealand, and the Paediatric Division of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association. The abstracts from each issue are translated into Chinese. And in this issue, we have authors from 8 countries in addition to the United States contributing their scholarship and clinical insights: Canada, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Scotland, United Kingdom! Our team of international Associate Editors and Editorial Board continues to demonstrate the commitment of PPT to this international scope. I want to point out two special contributions in this issue. Parents have contributed their responses and suggestions in two Clinical Bottom Lines. The “Commentary on: Modified Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy as a Home Based Intervention for Children With Cerebral Palsy” has both mother and father of a child with cerebral palsy, Ana and Joey Sarreal, sharing their insights into this research as it applies to their son and their family's experience with CIMT. In the “Commentary on: The Effect of Ankle-Foot Orthoses on Community-Based Walking in Cerebral Palsy: A Clinical Pilot Study,” Florin Taylor, the mother of a daughter with cerebral palsy, offers the pros and cons of the use of AFOs in her daughter's experience. In both commentaries, the parents strengthen the application of the research while offering suggestions to improve research and clinical care. Including parents in research and clinical practice exemplifies the best of evidence-based practice by representing all three components of EBP: research, expert clinical practice, and patient and families' goals and perspectives. Linda Fetters Editor-in-Chief Sydney, Australia
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.547 | 0.318 |
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".