Profile of a national sample of Canadian children with participation and activity limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the nature of Canadian children with participation or activity limitations. Our objective was to profile a nationally representative sample of Canadian children with report of participation or activity limitation including identifying the major medical reasons attributed to these limitations and describe their sociodemographic and functional characteristics. We used data from the Canadian 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey, a post-census Statistics Canada national survey of adults and children whose everyday activities were limited because of a condition or health problem. Data were collected by telephone interview of children's (<15 years) parents. A sample of those who answered 'yes' to the 2006 Canada Census disability filter questions was chosen for follow-up. Functional ability was assessed using the Health Utility Index. Mental health (26.1%) was the most common reason reported for participation and activity limitations followed by respiratory (9.8%), neurological (5.5%), and congenital (4.6%) conditions. Having a comorbid condition was associated with each major reason for limitation. Mental health, neurological, and congenital conditions showed the highest risk of functional limitation. In conclusion, mental health conditions and those with multiple conditions should be a primary focus for interventions aimed at reducing the impact of health conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".