Defining a Bobath clinical framework – A modified e-Delphi study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus within the expert International Bobath Instructors Training Association (IBITA) on a Bobath clinical framework on which future efficacy studies can be based. METHODS: A three-round modified e-Delphi approach was used with 204 full members of the IBITA. Twenty-one initial statements were generated from the literature. Consensus was defined a priori as at least 80% of the respondents with a level of agreement on a Likert scale of 4 or 5. The Delphi questionnaire for each round was available online for two weeks. Summary reports and subsequent questionnaires were posted within four weeks. RESULTS: Ninety-four IBITA members responded, forming the Delphi panel, of which 68 and 66 responded to Rounds Two and Three, respectively. The 21 initial statements were revised to 17 statements and five new statements in Round Two in which eight statements were accepted and two statements were eliminated. Round Three presented 12 revised statements, all reaching consensus. CONCLUSION: The Delphi was successful in gaining consensus on a Bobath clinical framework in a geographically diverse expert association, identifying the unique components of Bobath clinical practice. Discussion throughout all three Rounds revolved primarily around the terminology of atypical and compensatory motor behavior and balance.
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.
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 | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it