Technology used in activity based therapy for individuals living with spinal cord injury across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional equipment inventory. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe the equipment used in activity-based therapy (ABT) programs for individuals with spinal cord injury or disorder (SCI/D) across Canada. SETTINGS: Publicly funded and private SCI/D care settings. METHODS: A survey on equipment available for ABT for different therapeutic goals was answered by Canadian sites providing SCI/D rehabilitation. Information about the setting and type of client were also collected. The survey results were compiled into an inventory of the reported types and use of ABT related equipment, with equipment grouped into varying levels of technology. Descriptive statistics and qualitative descriptive analysis were used to answer the questions: (1) 'who' used the equipment, (2) 'what' types of equipment are used, (3) 'why' (i.e., for which therapeutic goals), and (4) 'how' it is used. RESULTS: Twenty-two sites from eight Canadian provinces completed the survey. Reported equipment was classified into 5 categories (from low to high-tech). Most equipment reported was used to train balance. The high-tech equipment reported as available, was mostly used for walking training and strengthening of the lower limbs. Low-tech equipment was reported as being used most frequently, while high-tech devices, although available, were reported as infrequently or rarely used. CONCLUSIONS: A large spectrum of equipment with varying levels of technology were reported as available, but were inconsistently used to provide ABT interventions across sites. In order to increase the clinical use of available equipment for ABT, education tools such as protocols regarding ABT principles and implementation are needed.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".