Functional Cognitive Activities for Adults with Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These pilot case studies investigated the effectiveness of the Functional Cognitive Activities for Adults with Brain Injury: A Sequential Approach (FCA) in generalizing functional cognitive skills across meaningful occupations for adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI). This quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design consisted of two participants with TBI. Both participants received occupation-based intervention sessions twice a week and equaled a total of 14 sessions each. For pretest, the two participants were given three assessments to track changes with aspects of functional cognition and engagement in occupations: the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Kohlman Evaluation of Living Skills (KELS), and Goal Attainment Scale (GAS). After completing the treatment sessions, the participants completed the COPM, KELS, and GAS as posttest measures. Four months later, the COPM and the GAS were administered along with a brief phone interview to determine if generalization of strategies to overcome cognitive deficits has occurred. Findings from this study provide preliminary evidence supporting the effectiveness of the FCA approach in improving functional cognitive skills and generalizability of skills to novel tasks in individuals with TBI.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".