MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6889092689 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6934776.v1

Understanding the Early Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Brain Injury Associations Across Canada: A Qualitative Study

2023· other· en· W6889092689 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicPublic healthAcquired brain injuryQualitative researchTraumatic brain injuryInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased challenges for people living with brain injury and community associations to support this vulnerable population. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the challenges faced by brain injury survivors during the first year of the pandemic and how community brain injury associations adapted their services to respond to these needs. Findings from seven focus-group with 31 representatives of Canadian brain injury associations revealed 4 main themes: (1) Addressing evolving client needs; (2) Keeping clients safe; (3) Challenges and opportunities navigating the digital world; and (4) Sustaining brain injury associations in the face of uncertainties and disruptions. To comply with public health measures, associations reported pivoting their service delivery online, despite recognizing the difficulties this could create for many brain injury survivors in accessing and using technology. Our findings also highlight concrete directions for not-profit organizations providing instrumental help with activities, acting as a liaison and interpreter of public health guidelines, and in connecting with clients using technology while handling potential cognitive and technological challenges. Addressing these issues has the potential to protect people living with brain injury and community associations from external threats, like pandemics, in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.402
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.091 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207