MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884358739 · doi:10.1017/s0714980818000326

Évaluation de Marche vers le futur, un programme novateur de prévention des chutes offert par videoconference

2018· article· en· W2884358739 on OpenAlexaff
Jacinthe Savard, Sophie Labossière, Dominique Cardinal, Bernard Pinet, Caroline Borris

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsNational Capital CommissionMinistry of Community Safety and Correctional ServicesUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVideoconferencingEquity (law)Valuation (finance)Risk preventionBusinessPolitical scienceLibrary scienceEngineeringTelecommunicationsComputer scienceFinanceRisk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACTSeveral fall prevention programs have been implemented to reduce falls among seniors. In some rural areas or in French-speaking minority communities, the availability of such programs is limited. The objectives of this paper are to: (a) describe the Fall Prevention Program Marche vers le futur, offered in French, by videoconference; and (b) present the results of the evaluation of the program objectives. Results demonstrate that participants have improved their physical abilities, gained knowledge, adopted new behaviors and lifestyle habits. In short, Marche vers le futur reduces fall risk factors in a manner equal or superior to other programs. Marche vers le futur has made possible the provision of services in French in communities where availability of French-language resources is very limited, therefore fostering equity in access to health services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207