Measures for Persons with Spinal Cord Injury to Monitor Their Transitions in Care, Health, Function, and Quality of Life Experiences and Needs: A Protocol for Co-Developing a Self-Evaluation Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating the experiences of persons with spinal cord injury (PwSCI) regarding their transitions in care and changes in health, function, and quality of life is complex, fragmented, and involves multiple tools and measures. A staged protocol was implemented with PwSCI and relevant expert stakeholders initially exploring and selecting existing measures or tools through a modified Delphi process, followed by choosing one of two options. The options were to either support the use of the 10 selected tools from the Delphi method or to co-develop one unique condensed tool with relevant measures to evaluate all four domains. The stakeholders chose to co-develop one tool to be used by persons with SCI to monitor their transition experiences across settings and care providers. This includes any issues with care or support they needed to address at the time of discharge from acute care or rehabilitation and in the community at 3, 6, and 12 months or longer post-discharge. Once developed, the tool was made available online for the final stage of the protocol, which proposes that the tool be reliability tested prior to its launch, followed by validation testing by PwSCI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".