Evaluation of a Teleconference-Delivered Energy Conservation Education Program for People with Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the strengths and limitations of teleconference delivery for energy conservation education for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). This study evaluated such a program to address this gap. METHODS: Data were collected from 28 individuals with MS who participated in a teleconference-delivered energy conservation education program. Participants shared their perspectives on the course and its delivery format. Session notes from the three occupational therapists who delivered the program were also reviewed. FINDINGS: Participants found the format to be convenient and relaxed, and the content to be relevant to their everyday lives. Technical issues, lack of time for sharing, and lack of time to practice strategies were limitations. Although the format challenged the occupational therapists' group leadership skills, they were surprised at the extent of group cohesion that developed using this format. IMPLICATIONS: Feedback from both people with MS and occupational therapists suggests that providing energy conservation education by teleconference is acceptable, practical, and worth pursuing in the future.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".