Friendship Quality, Friendship Quantity, and Social Participation in Adults with Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) often report reduced social participation and loss of friends, but little is known about quality of friendship after TBI. Our objective was to characterize social participation, friendship quantity, and friendship quality of adults with TBI and a comparison group of uninjured adults. Participants included 18 adults with moderate to severe TBI and 16 of their informant friends; and 18 uninjured adults and 11 of their informant friends. The main measures used were the Participation Assessment with Recombined Tools-Objective, the Social Network Questionnaire, and the McGill Friendship Questionnaire. Participants with TBI reported significantly less social participation and had fewer total friends, although this difference was not statistically significant. Adults with TBI differed from their friends on one measure of friendship quality, but reports for friendship quality were high in both groups. Adults with TBI reported overall high levels of friendship quality despite having lower levels of social participation compared with uninjured adults. Future research should investigate how the balance of quantity and quality of friendships relates to satisfaction with social participation and overall quality of life.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".