Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div> The purpose of our study was to develop a toolkit to facilitate the implementation of functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling for persons with a newly acquired spinal cord injury (SCI) in the acute care inpatient hospital setting. The researchers and community members used participatory action as a research approach to co-create the toolkit. We held two focus groups to develop drafts, with a third meeting to provide feedback, and a fourth meeting to evaluate the toolkit and determine dissemination strategies. Toolkit development followed the Planning, Action, Reflection, Evaluation cycle. We used an iterative design informed by focus group and toolkit consultant (SC) feedback. In focus group discussions, we included FES cycling champions (JK, DW) who led acute care implementation. Focus group members, recruited through purposive sampling, had to 1) have an understanding about FES cycling in acute care for SCI and 2) represent one of these groups: individual living with SCI, social support, hospital manager, clinician, therapist, researcher, and/or acute care FES cycling champion. Twelve individuals took part in four focus groups to develop a toolkit designed to facilitate implementation of FES cycling in SCI acute care in Edmonton, Alberta. Group members included an individual with lived experience, three acute-care occupational or physical therapists, three acute-care hospital managers, and five researchers. Two physical therapists also identified as clinical FES cycling champions. Following an inductive content analysis, we identified four main themes: 1) Health care provider toolkit content and categories, 2) Health care provider toolkit end product, 3) Collaborations between groups and institutions and 4) Infrastructure. Interested parties who utilize FES cycling in acute care for SCI rehabilitation agree that toolkits should target the appropriate group, be acute care setting-specific, and provide information for a smooth transition in care. </div>
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 | 0.000 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.185 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".