A Living Lab for Family Centered Knowledge Exchange in Pediatric Rehabilitation and Development Research: A Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Historically, the experiences and voices of children and youth living with neurodiversity or rehabilitation needs and their families have not been fully represented in health research. Formative research in this context indicates that families value learning from the experiences of other families as well as from empirical research. However, innovative systems are needed to support this imperative. In response, we co-designed a virtual living lab with families and clinicians to support family-centered knowledge exchange in neurodiversity and rehabilitation research. Living labs are collaborative, user-centered, long-term, and multimethod systems with potential to support the exchange of knowledge of lived experience. This proposal outlines a longitudinal arts-based and qualitative research study that incorporates storytelling as a powerful tool to elicit and exchange stories of lived experience through the virtual living lab, and subsequent usability testing of the platform. Methods and Analysis Stage 1- We will conduct an integrated knowledge translation study inclusive of user centered lab design and construction. Stage 2- We will conduct a 6-month longitudinal qualitative storytelling study with 30–40 participants including neurodiverse children and youth ages 5–19 years, their siblings, and parent/guardians, guided by the F-words framework which is based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Following user-registration within the virtual lab, participants will complete a minimum of 1 story monthly, accompanied by an arts-based component, for 6 months. Conclusion Findings will inform the co-development of an arts-based knowledge translation resource to communicate key findings. Stage 3- A subset of families will be sampled to complete usability testing of the living lab platform and storytelling feature using a sequential explanatory mixed methods design. Usability evaluation will inform future platform refinements and provide indications of acceptability and use across subgroups.
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 | 0.037 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".