A cross-country reflection on empirical and theoretical learnings, challenges, and the way forward for reablement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The book has provided an interdisciplinary, comparative, as well as a critical investigation of reablement practice, investigating reablement from the perspectives of research, theory, and practice. In this concluding chapter, we want to take the opportunity to reflect on the content of the book chapters, and with a focus on the convergence/divergence of reablement tracks, the challenges and learnings, as well as the implications for theory, practice and policy-making. The chapter has been developed following a facilitated online discussion between five members of the ReAble Network and based on a reading of all chapters. The participants in the discussion were: Tine Rostgaard (Professor, Stockholm University, Sweden, and Roskilde University, Denmark); Hanne Tuntland (Professor, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences and Associate Professor, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway); Rudi Westendorp (Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark); Michelle Nelson (Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, Canada); and John Parsons (Associate Professor, The University of Auckland, New Zealand). The discussion was structured around a number of key questions and was recorded and transcribed. The chapter summarises the key learnings and messages from the book and, using quotes from the discussion, illustrates the potential implications for reablement practice and research. Moreover, the editors reflect in the conclusion over the key issues discussed in the book, learning points and the way forward. What is the main message of the book? The first question posed to the five participants in the facilitated discussion related to what they believed was the main message of the book. It was here acknowledged that the contributors to the book are from nine countries across three continents and represent various disciplinary backgrounds. Most of the chapters have a cross-country and cross-disciplinary comparative perspective. In addition, the combination of both a researcher's and a clinician's perspective are of particular note: ‘The book brings together two different perspectives. It's one of the health professionals who analyses the implications for clinical practice and client-level outcomes. The other perspective is from social scientists who analyse the political possibilities and constraints within the service delivery situation.’ Furthermore, basing the book on the ReAble Network of international collaborators was seen as a strength of the book, which allowed the identification of key messages relating to the development and implementation of reablement across the participating countries.
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 | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".