LIGNES DIRECTRICES POUR LA PRATIQUE LA RÉÉDUCATION PÉRINÉALE ET PELVIENNE AU QUÉBEC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'elaboration de lignes directrices quant a la reeducation perineale et pelvienne (RPP) au Quebec s'avere essentielle afin de structurer la pratique de cette activite selon les donnees probantes existantes et les risques de prejudice pour le client. Elles se veulent un outil permettant aux physiotherapeutes de developper une meilleure pratique quant a l'exercice securitaire et adequat de la reeducation perineale et pelvienne. Les meilleures pratiques reconnaissent l'exercice de la physiotherapie fondee sur les donnees probantes. Dans leur pratique clinique, les physiotherapeutes integrent avec empressement les recents resultats des recherches cliniques a leur expertise clinique, aux valeurs de leur client et aux ressources disponibles pour obtenir les meilleurs resultats possibles pour leur client [i]. Ces lignes directrices ont ete elaborees en tenant compte des sept dimensions des competences essentielles des physiotherapeutes au Canada [2]. Nous vous presenterons d'abord l'aspect clinique de la demarche et ensuite nous preciserons certaines particularites de cette pratique auxquelles le physiotherapeute doit porter une attention particuliere en raison de sa responsabilite professionnelle. Ces lignes directrices permettront aux physiotherapeutes d'adopter une demarche rigoureuse, aux formateurs de structurer leur contenu de cours, au public d'etre mieux sensibilise aux normes actuelles de la RPP et finalement a l'Ordre d'assurer une meilleure protection du public.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.002 |
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".