MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460960895 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.06.233

Poster 193 Barriers to Mobility in Adult Cerebral Palsy

2015· article· en· W2460960895 on OpenAlexaff
David Berbrayer

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)Cerebral palsyCitationLibrary scienceMedicinePsychologyComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

D. Berbrayer: I Have No Relevant Financial Relationships To Disclose. What are the barriers to mobility as it relates to limiting employment of adult Cerebral Palsy? This qualitative study involved a 30 minute structured interview of patients randomized by a nursing coordinator attending an outpatient adult rehabilitation clinic at a university teaching centre. Individuals with severe cognitive impairment were excluded. The interview was open ended and allowed the subjects to undergo self-reflection. Themes and patterns were identified. Adult Cerebral Palsy were employed either full time or major part time (> 3 days /week). Academic university hospital 10 adults (> 18years) with spastic cerebral palsy-5 female, 5 male. Qualitative structure open ended questions in 30 minute interview with allowance for reflection. Exclusion: Adult Cerebral Palsy with severe cognitive disability and associated language barriers. Qualitative open ended questionnaire for 30 minutes and further 10 minutes for reflection. Answers were recorded with permission from Adult Cerebral Palsy. Questions were reviewed by the Institutional Review Board and approved for study. Transportation was a recurrent theme with delays in handicap transport and lack of accessible parking near the site of employment. At the site of employment, there were identified difficulties with ease of entering and exiting the bathroom. There was difficulty for the elevator to accommodate a scooter or a powered/manual wheelchair. There were accessibility issues with respect to the size of the work cubicle and the entrance to the work site was limited by the type of door handle- push/lever and weight of the door. Push buttons and elevator delays or breakdowns created barriers. Use of telephone or computers was difficult. During lunch hour there was insufficient time to eat the food and difficulty to access fridge or microwave. Availability and maintenance of accessibility devices and services are recurring as barriers to one's mobility when considering employment or volunteer opportunities. Physiatrists have a role in education of employers about barrier needs and ensuring environment can accommodate adult cerebral palsy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.281
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207