MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184310957 · doi:10.22215/sdhlab/2021.2

Report: Service Provision for Children and Youth with Disabilities in Rural Canada and Australia.

2021· report· en· W3184310957 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Christina C. Rachpaul, Claudia Sendanyoye, Alexa Mahling, Monica Sourial, Sajra Trto, Paul A. Peters

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsService (business)PsychologyGeographyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUNDChildren and youth with disabilities residing in rural and remote regions of Canada and Australia are faced with limited availability and accessibility of appropriate allied health services.As a result, children and families often facing difficulties obtaining a timely diagnosis (1) and experience fewer options for support services compared to their urban counterparts (2-6).Common accessibility barriers include geographic isolation, limited transportation options, long travel distances, limited number of available health care providers, increased wait times to obtain services, and high costs for appropriate services (6,7).Health service provision that takes into consideration rural and remote contexts is required to mitigate challenges imposed by geographic location.There is limited data available regarding the prevalence of children and youth with disabilities in rural and remote communities.A greater understanding of existing resources to support children and youth with disabilities in hard-to-reach areas warrants further investigation.To better inform this topic, a structured scoping review and thematic analysis was conducted.Additionally, there are challenges in adequately collecting data pertaining to children and youth with disabilities.Much of this challenge is due to the lack of consensus regarding the inclusion of disability types and classifications.The UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (8) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) developed a definition of disabilities by combining pertinent elements of the definition (1).Disability is defined as, "children and adolescents who require additional resources because of exceptional gifts and talents, physical, sensory, cognitive and learning challenges, mental health issues as well as problems due to social, cultural, linguistic or family factors" (2).This report summarizes the complete scoping review aims to provide a clear understanding of allied health service provision for children and youth with disabilities living in rural and remote communities in both Canada and Australia.This is accomplished through a comprehensives synthesis and comparative analysis of the existing literature, including identifying gaps in the literature and recommendations for future research and policy improvement.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207