Exploring Social Participation Among Adults with Spinal Cord Injury During the Second Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic challenged people with spinal cord injury (SCI) regarding a variety of mental and physical issues. New challenges may arise as the effects of the pandemic continue. The objective of the present study was to explore the social participation of Canadians with SCI during the second wave of COVID-19. Methods: Participants with SCI from two Canadian provinces (Quebec and British Columbia) were interviewed. Results: Eighteen participants completed interviews. Facilitators of social participation remain similar since the first wave of COVID-19, such as the use of technology, help received by relatives and the use of delivery services to obtain groceries and other essentials. Obstacles to mobility due to winter conditions and lack of considerations related to COVID-19 public health measures specific to wheelchair users were also discussed by participants. Conclusions: People with SCI perceived participation restrictions, little changes in life habits, and uncertainty about the future during the second wave of COVID-19. The unique living conditions of people with SCI, ability to adapt life habits, and the lived experiences of people with SCI may have contributed to an overall resilience during the pandemic. Adaptive families, social contacts and technology made a difference during the pandemic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".