Service provision for children and young people with acquired brain injury: Practice recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Providing appropriate rehabilitation services for Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) in childhood presents a number of challenges for caregivers, health and education professionals and the young person as they develop. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To record the challenges and possible creative solutions generated by an international group of professionals to address the needs of children with ABI. Review of information: Recommendations were generated from children's special interest group meetings of the International Brain Injury Association (Turin, Italy, 2001; Stockholm, Sweden, 2003; Melbourne, Australia, 2005; Lisbon, Portugal, 2008) and through meetings of the International Paediatric Brain Injury Society (IPBIS), formed in 2009. Delegates participating in the workshops were representative of nations from around the world and included The Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Finland, Germany, South Africa, the US, Canada, Sweden, Brazil and Italy. OUTCOMES: The information presented is based on a retrospective review of those meetings and the summaries of the topics considered.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".