Community-based physical activity and wheelchair mobility programs for individuals with spinal cord injury in Canada: Current reflections and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: A clear need has been identified to find strategies and opportunities, beyond services provided during rehabilitation, to enhance community-based mobility and leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) participation among members of the spinal cord injury (SCI) population. METHOD: This review of existing mobility and LTPA programs that are available for individuals with SCI in Canada reflects the authors' current knowledge of existing evidence-based and community-based programs. The authors aim to highlight the gaps between existing programs and future needs. RESULTS: The major gaps identified in this brief clinical report include the need for: community-based mobility training programs, patient reported outcomes, assessment of long-term impact of programs, identifying the best approaches for program delivery, and developing researcher-stakeholder partnerships. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based mobility programs and community-based LTPA do exist, and the available research shows their promise. Despite the growing research for LTPA and mobility programs among adults with SCI, many gaps remain. Additional partnerships, community engagement practices, service program funding and health policy changes are needed to address the highlighted gaps to optimize community-based programs and enhance the lives of adults with SCI.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".