Workshop (Clinical/Best Practice Implementation) ID 2002364
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Spinal cord injury (SCI) affects every aspect of a person’s bodily functions. As such, for a person to survive and strive in the community after SCI, both a comprehensive and effective rehabilitation program, as well as life-sustaining healthcare (i.e., SCI-specific medical services, equipment, and supplies) is needed. Although Canada has a publicly funded universal healthcare system, provinces have flexibility in determining how rehabilitation is delivered and in defining ‘essential’ healthcare. Methods/Overview This workshop will consist of two lectures on current standards of care in acute SCI rehabilitation and provision of life-sustaining SCI healthcare services, equipment, and supplies in Canada, followed by an initial overview of standards in other comparable countries and discussion of next steps for developing equity and consistency in Canada for SCI rehabilitation and provision of SCI-related healthcare needs. Learning Objectives Upon completion of this workshop, attendees will understand: That public policies and practices in each province involves means-testing for provision of 1. attendant services for activities of daily living (ADL) in 5/10 provinces; 2. neurogenic bladder and bowel supplies (NBBS) in 9/10 provinces and 3. power and manual wheelchairs in 4/10 provinces. Income levels at which public support ceases can be lower than the poverty line. Current standards of care relating to initial in-patient SCI rehabilitation provision of essential medical supplies in Canada involves wide discrepancies, inequities and inadequacies. Processes for moving forward to develop a Canadian national standard for inpatient rehabilitation and for provision of SCI-related medical services and supplies.
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 | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.498 | 0.202 |
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".