Facilitators and obstacles to the use of a cognitive orthosis for meal preparation within the homes of adults with a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: Informal caregivers and health-care professionals’ perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cognitive orthosis named COOK was developed and implemented to facilitate meal preparation for adults with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) living in an alternative housing unit. This study aimed to explore facilitators and barriers to the potential use and implementation of COOK in a new context (i.e., within the homes of people living with a TBI in the community). For this purpose, 20 stakeholders (e.g., health-care professionals, clinical coordinators, informal caregivers of individuals with TBI) were interviewed. Participants identified various potential benefits of this technology (e.g., improving independence and confidence of people with TBI) and facilitators (e.g., clinical and technical supports, helpful functionalities) that could facilitate the use and implementation of COOK within a home environment. However, numerous questions remained unanswered regarding the logistics surrounding the implementation of such technology. Thus, further studies and modifications are required to facilitate future implementation of this technology among individuals living in their own homes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it