Primary care for persons with spinal cord injury — not a novel idea but still under-developed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary care for persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) has long been recognized as an important issue. Over the last two decades, there has not been any consensus on its contents, pathway or delivery model. Despite the lack of attention on this issue, various health care organizations and settings have successfully developed their own version of primary care for persons with SCI. On the other hand, persons with SCI have also found different ways to obtain primary care through Family Physicians and specialists, often depending on the health care structure of their country. This has blurred the line between what is traditionally seen as primary vs. specialist care. The "medical home" model may be ideal for SCI primary care, and it may be establishsed in different care settings. In order to create this model, health care funding structure, appropriate access to physical facility and SCI knowledge, interdisciplinary provider availability and collaboration, as well as active engagement with persons with SCI are necessary. The SCI community should endorse SCI primary care with effective advocacy and implementation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".