MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6944069092 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/rm4h2

Adaptations for Psychosocial Supports After Acquired Brain Injury: A Scoping Review

2022· other· en· W6944069092 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialAcquired brain injurySocial supportGrey literatureSocial isolationIsolation (microbiology)Mental healthRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acquired brain injury (ABI) is defined as damage to the brain sustained after birth, and can result in varied combinations of sensory, motor, cognitive, communication, and emotional problems. These problems frequently lead to issues with psychological and social (i.e., psychosocial) adjustment, including social isolation and significantly higher rates of mental health disorders compared to the general population. To date, research on supports to address the psychosocial problems faced by people with ABI-related disability has been limited. Types of psychosocial supports that are commonly offered to people with ABI-related disability include support groups, individual and group psychotherapy, and participation in meaningful life activities such as recreation. There is preliminary evidence to suggest that the accessibility of these psychosocial supports can be enhanced through adaptations that compensate for the diverse needs of people with ABI-related disability, and thereby allow them to better participate in supports. However, little is known about what adaptations are specifically needed for the different types of community-based psychosocial supports that are provided to this population. To address these knowledge gaps, this project aims to identify community-based psychosocial support adaptations for ABI-related disability. A scoping review of the existing literature will be conducted to synthesize documented adaptations. Given the dearth of information in this field, the sensitivity of search results will be maximized to avoid missing information. Therefore, this review will include all published and grey literature that contain recommendations for how existing community-based psychosocial supports can be modified to compensate for ABI-related disability. Databases containing literature from diverse disciplines who conduct research relevant to supporting psychosocial adjustment after ABI will be searched. Results will be qualitatively analyzed for the type of support being adapted, the nature of the adaptation, and the ABI-related disability it is intended to compensate for. This review will produce a range of documented psychosocial support adaptations for people with ABI-related disability, and will be the first to cover the entire spectrum of community-based psychosocial supports for this population. It will also locate gaps in the current knowledge that can be examined in future research on disability accessibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0140.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207