Priorities and opportunities for advocacy in SCI: An international web-based review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: For the growing number of people with spinal cord injuries worldwide, advocacy organizations are an invaluable resource of information and education during recovery and rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: To examine the structure, information, and accessibility of websites from international organizations that serve and advocate for individuals with SCI. METHODS: We performed a content analysis of information available from SCI organizations returned from a Google search. We used search terms relevant to SCI and advocacy and applied them to top-level domains for the G20 countries. Organizations that provide services or advocate for people with SCI with English-language websites were included; organizations focused on research, fundraising, clinical care, interprofessional knowledge exchange, or other neurological conditions were excluded. Accessibility, in terms of ease of use to information about participation, was assessed using a 3-point scale. RESULTS: = 11). Across these, six categories of resources and services are covered: (1) education, (2) physical health, (3) external, (4) peer support, (5) mental health, and (6) financial and legal. Eleven organizations indicate specific engagement with research or clinical trials. Four websites provided highly accessible information (rank = 3) about participation in research. CONCLUSION: The SCI organizations identified in this study offer resources that largely pertain to education and physical health services and strategies. Information about clinical trials and SCI research studies are easily accessible on the websites of the limited number of organizations offering avenues for participation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".