Workshop (Clinical/Best Practice Implementation) ID 1984795
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives Following an initial summit in March 2019, various Canadian stakeholders have collaborated within a Community of Practice (CoP) with a vision to increase the access to, and quality of activity-based therapies (ABT) for persons with spinal cord injury/disease (SCI/D). This workshop will describe key knowledge products and study findings emanating from working groups of the ABT CoP as well as a study initiated through the Canadian SCI Standing and Walking Module Group. Design/Methods Priority areas were identified by consensus across the ABT CoP, leading to several studies and development of specific knowledge products. Key challenges included defining and standardizing ABT, gaps in knowledge/training and practice variation with a focus on achieving optimal timing, dosage and intensity of ABT. Various knowledge products and study findings related to these challenges will be presented, with audience interaction encouraged through polls and open discussion. Results Presentation highlights include a framework for structured reporting of ABT and a series of videos, pod-casts and information cards promoting ABT. In addition, a mixed methods study of Canadian physiotherapists demonstrated that ABTs were a much desired, yet not fully available treatment option. Therapists identified needs for more fulsome research partnerships, improved and more creative staffing models, enhanced training methods and the importance of a strong therapeutic alliance. Conclusion The work of the ABT CoP will continue to focus on these and other priorities, with the ultimate goal of universal access and identification of approaches that will enhance outcomes for persons with SCI/D.
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 | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.569 | 0.235 |
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".