THE THOUGHT OF LIVING WITH SPINAL CORD INJURY: HOW AN IMAGINED DISABILITY AFFECTS LIFE SATISFACTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paralysis resulting from a spinal cord injury is a traumatic, life changing event having both acute and prolonged effects on an individual's life satisfaction (LS).Ethical and methodological considerations make research on the initial impact of paralysis on LS using a patient population difficult.As spinal cord injury and other debilitating injuries can affect anyone, understanding how the average person thinks about living with paralysis caused by spinal cord injury offers important insight to how individuals might the injury during the initial days.Using an online-survey methodology we examined how the average person believes two levels of paralysis, paraplegia and quadriplegia, could affect their overall LS.Four-hundred and eighteen participants completed a demographics questionnaire, the Life Satisfaction Questionnaire-11, and the Big Five Inventory-2.Additionally, the participants indicated the degree to which they thought that their life was worth living.After completing these measures, they were asked to imagine themselves living with paraplegia.While doing this, they re-completed the LiSAT-11 and rated the degree to which they thought life would be worth living.They completed these measures one additional time, after imagining themselves living with quadriplegia.Analyses revealed a significant main effect of tSCI scenario on LiSAT-11 scores.LiSAT-11 scores were considerably lower than the participant's actual LS in both imagined paralysis conditions, being lowest in the quadriplegia condition.The degree to which they believed that their life would be worth living followed the same trend.Although participants believed that their lives were currently worth living, they believed life would be substantially less worth living if they were either paraplegic or quadriplegic.Several personality domains were also found to be associated with these factors.Discussion: The results of the present study provide insight into how traumatic spinal cord injury might affect LS and self-worth in, at least, the initial days of injury.The findings could also have implications for early psychological intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".