Student Competition (Knowledge Generation) ID 1986472
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Spinal cord injury (SCI) results in physical impairments and psychosocial issues that generate challenges to individuals, families, and society. Understanding the acute care hospital experience after SCI is important as it may have an impact on persons with spinal cord injuries’ (PWSCI) subsequent journey to the rehabilitation center and community. This experience has not been studied in Nepal, especially from the perspective of PWSCI. Objectives To understand how PWSCI (1) are involved in decision-making for their care; (2) are educated about secondary complications and, (3) perceive overall positive and negative experiences regarding their care during their acute care hospital stay in Nepal. Methods Qualitative study based on Van Manen’s phenomenology using purposive sampling at the Spinal Injury Rehabilitation Center, the only dedicated SCI center in Nepal. We interviewed participants (n=24) who were referred from nine different acute hospitals using a semi-structured interview guide co-developed with SCI experts and PWSCI. Using thematic analysis, we extracted the findings with Manen’s approach. Results We identified three preliminary themes: (1) Families, but not PWSCI, are often included in the decision-making process; (2) For education on secondary complications, only pressure injury prevention was recalled; (3) Timeliness of spinal surgery was a concern. Conclusion There are opportunities to improve the acute care experience for PWSCI in Nepal. PWSCI desired to be more engaged in the decision-making process and more involved in their own care. Concerns regarding the timeliness of surgery correlated with the findings of previous Nepali studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.846 | 0.524 |
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".