MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3088349443 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaa101

Les soins complets de l’enfant ayant la paralysie cérébrale et capable de marcher (GMFCS I et II) : une perspective canadienne

2020· article· fr· W3088349443 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anne Kawamura, Amber Makino, Scott McLeod

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract La paralysie cérébrale (PC), qui est l’incapacité physique la plus fréquente au Canada, touche de deux à trois personnes sur 1 000. Au cours de leur carrière, les pédiatres verront et soigneront à coup sûr des enfants ayant la PC et leur famille. Le pédiatre général joue un rôle crucial dans les soins de l’enfant ayant la PC, qu’il s’agisse de poser le diagnostic ou d’assurer l’accès à une maison médicale (medical home), de garantir la coordination des soins ou de donner des conseils et des soins préventifs pour assurer sa santé et son bien-être. La fiche de santé et de bien-être en cas de PC qui accompagne le présent point de pratique peut aider à la fois le praticien et la famille de l’enfant à explorer des aspects essentiels de la santé, du fonctionnement, de la participation aux activités et du bien-être. Cette fiche peut être utilisée conjointement avec d’autres guides de promotion de la santé fondés sur des données probantes, comme le Relevé postnatal Rourke et le Relevé médical Greig, pour renseigner les cliniciens qui s’occupent d’enfants ayant la PC et capables de marcher (niveaux I et II du système de classification de la fonction motrice globale) sur des troubles et des domaines de santé particuliers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders→French-language works237,207→