Communities of Hope : Living With Stroke and Brain injury in Northern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a rapidly aging population worldwide, the increase in expected stroke burden highlights an urgent need to better understand patient experiences in part as an effort to improve services and care. We undertook an exploratory arts-based project aimed at harnessing the power of storytelling to gather invaluable frontline insights, identify research priorities and questions and to determine interest in potential collaborations to undertake further research to systematically investigate stroke care in northern British Columbia. A central aspect of this work was to provide an avenue for the u2018patient voiceu2019 through the sharing of personal stories of stroke experiences through various art modalities including poetry, painting, drum-making, and pottery. Sharing of experiences in navigating care, challenges, barriers, and opportunities were all encouraged. We will present an overview of this work including the arts events and community celebrations and key themes from the discussions that ensued will also be shared. We hope to highlight how we as researchers, healthcare providers, and decision-makers can listen and learn from patients to improve stroke research, prevention, and management as well as further our understanding of the dynamic and diverse experiences of this particular population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".