Re/producing the Pediatric Concussion Discourse in clinical rehabilitation practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the field of pediatric concussion, little to no scholarship has examined how clinical practice is shaped by patterned ways of thinking, talking about, and coming to understand concussion and young people (or "discourses of concussion in young people"). In this paper, we examine the ways in which one such discourse, the Pediatric Concussion Discourse (PCD), shapes how young people with concussion, their parents, and clinicians can think about, act in relation to, and experience concussion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This critical rehabilitation research is informed by the post-structuralist theory of Michel Foucault (1926-1984), and the key concepts of power/knowledge, discourse, and the subject. RESULTS: Circulating through clinical guidelines for the management of pediatric concussion, the PCD re/produces the expectation that young people with concussion and their parents will behave as "responsible" subjects who follow the recommendations of so-called experts without question. If recommendations are not implemented, the PCD has the potential to constitute these same groups as "nonadherent", re/producing problematic discourses of medical compliance. CONCLUSIONS: By examining the effects of the PCD, it becomes possible to imagine how clinical practice and research might evolve in new ways that respect the knowledges and experiences of young people with concussion and their parents.Implications for RehabilitationEngaging in critical examination of clinical rehabilitative practice creates opportunity to imagine how we might approach commonly adopted clinical approaches, including the delivery of health education, differently.Implications for clinical rehabilitation practice include delivering health education in the context of supportive therapeutic relationships that respect the knowledges and experience of young people with concussion and their parents.Implications for rehabilitation research include engaging with critical scholarship within and beyond field and disciplinary boundaries, engaging in formal educational opportunities, and connecting with less formal but invaluable communities of practice.
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 | 0.027 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".