The Path to Translating Focus of Attention Research Into Canadian Physiotherapy, Part 3: Designing a Workshop Through Consultation With Physiotherapists and Focus of Attention Researchers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although researchers have consistently demonstrated the potential benefit of an external focus of attention for rehabilitation, research has shown that this finding has yet to be translated into Canadian physiotherapy. Further, specific barriers to external focus use have been reported by Canadian physiotherapists, and as a solution toward increasing physiotherapists’ use of external focus, these same physiotherapists recommended the development of an educational workshop on focus of attention. Considering this, described herein is the process of developing such a workshop, which involved (a) gathering input from physiotherapists concerning content and format via one-on-one interviews and (b) engaging in discussion about content with focus of attention researchers. Analysis of the interview data featured key content for the workshop, the types of activities to include, and a recommended sequencing for the activities: specifically, sharing didactic information on focus of attention research, then providing instruction and demonstration of external focus use, and finally, finishing with opportunities for generating and delivering external focus statements. This input, along with that of the researchers, led to the development of a two-component focus of attention workshop, which includes an asynchronous component, featuring seven self-directed learning modules and a synchronous component, which consists of a virtual group session.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it