A workshop for educators on concussion led directly to the user-centredcentered design of a school board approved return to learn protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To improve the educators’ knowledge and implementation of academic accommodations for optimal return to learn (RTL) after a sport-related concussion (SRC). Design Initially designed as a pre- post- intervention study, this qualitative report describes an unexpected but most relevant outcome of an educational intervention regarding SRC management in a school-based setting. Setting A sport-focused Ontario (Canada) secondary school. Participants 94 educational staff, including teachers, administrators and psychologists. Intervention A workshop where educators learned about SRC management and reflected on their own experiences with some of the 63 cases of SRC managed at theirschool over the preceding 3.5 years. Participants were asked to develop RTLprotocols adapted for their environment. Outcome measures Capacity to develop RTL protocols to improve concussionmanagement in school-based settings. main results Working in small groups, participants were able to independently construct RTL protocols. As an unexpected outcome of this session, the educators formed a committee, which formalised a user-centred (teacher accepted and student focused) eight-stage post-SRCRTL protocol. In 2015 their school board accepted this protocol for use at over 200 schools. The index school initiated a daily accommodations update RTL passport. Conclusions Working in small groups, participants were able to independently construct RTL protocols. As an unexpected outcome of this session, the educators formed a committee, which formalised a user-centred (teacher accepted and student focused) eight-stage post-SRCRTL protocol. In 2015 their school board accepted this protocol for use at over 200 schools. The index school initiated a daily accommodations update RTL passport. Competing interests None.
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 | 0.079 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.010 |
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".