MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385415097 · doi:10.1136/pn-2023-003763

Intrinsic motivation

2023· article· en· W4385415097 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePractical Neurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrinsic motivationPsychologySelf-determination theoryRehabilitationSimple (philosophy)Stroke (engine)Function (biology)Cognitive psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychotherapistMedicineSocial psychologyNeuroscienceEpistemologyAutonomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevailing wisdom in neurological rehabilitation, and particularly for stroke, is that physical therapies are the key to improvements in function. Despite accepting the importance of 'the motivated patient', the lack of simple, proven ways to improve intrinsic motivation has hindered efforts to combine physical therapies with motivation. Now there is available a simple, free, well-validated approach to encourage intrinsic motivation ('Take Charge'). The benefits for people who have had a stroke are well-established but this could be applied to people with a range of neurological and other disorders. We provide the evidential support for this approach and suggest ways of incorporating it into daily 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.300 · 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