Poster (Clinical/Best Practice Implementation) ID 2004605
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives The Centre for Family Medicine Mobility Clinic strives to provide high quality primary care to persons living with spinal cord injury or other health conditions that affect mobility. The Mobility Clinic Resource Abilities Council (MC RAC) was established to serve in an advisory capacity, making recommendations on matters that impact the experience of patients with physical disabilities and their support persons at the Mobility Clinic. Objectives MC RAC provides feedback on, and ideas for initiatives and programs that support and enhance the model of person-centred care. It also advances collaborative patient engagement and person-centred care principles and practices within primary care for persons with physical disabilities Methods/Overview Members include individuals with lived experience with physical disability, their support persons, and Mobility Clinic staff. The council was established August 2022 and meets virtually once per month for approximately 90 minutes. Results MC RAC has successfully met nine times and has provided feedback on the following topics: Breast & Cervical Cancer screening Initiative for People with Physical Disabilities, Mobility Clinic website development, building pathways for advocacy with the KW4 OHT, Circulus Network webinar topics, Mobility Clinic organization and clinical flow. Feedback to be implemented into Mobility Clinic activities. Conclusions Patient and support persons involvement in decision-making processes improve care experiences and contribute to better health outcomes for patients. We will continue to work and develop our patient advisory council to better support the Mobility Clinic’s patients and their support persons.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.651 | 0.310 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".