Functional Cognitive Activities for Adults with Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of these pilot case studies were to investigate the effectiveness of the Functional Cognitive Activities for Adults with Brain Injury: A Sequential Approach (FCA) in generalizing functional cognitive skills across meaningful occupations for adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study was a pretest-posttest design consisted of two participants with TBI. Both participants attended 14 out of the 16 intervention sessions, twice-a-week for eight-weeks. Pretest-posttest measurements, including the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Kohlman Evaluation of Living Skills, and Goal Attainment Scale (GAS), were used to measure changes in occupational performance. Additionally, a four-month follow-up phone interview using the COPM and GAS assessments explored the generalization of functional cognitive skills. Pretest-posttest results from the COPM demonstrated improvements, while the GAS results varied in occupational performance between participants. The four-month follow-up results demonstrated generalization in functional cognitive skills. The findings from this study provide preliminary evidence supporting the effectiveness of the FCA approach in improving functional cognitive skills and generalizability of skills to novel activities in individuals with TBI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".