MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of Emotional Well-Being indicators to advance the quality of spinal cord injury rehabilitation: SCI-High Project

2019· article· en· W6958962664 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLiterary and Philosophical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationAnxietyReferralDepression (economics)Psychological interventionSpinal cord injuryHealth careQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<b>Context:</b> Emotional Well-Being (EWB) post-spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D) is a critical aspect of adjustment to disability. Advancing care and assuring equity in care delivery within this rehabilitation care domain is essential. Herein, we describe the selection of EWB structure, process and outcome indicators for adults with SCI/D in the first 18 months after rehabilitation admission. <b>Methods:</b> A pan-Canadian Working Group completed the following tasks: (1) defined the EWB construct; (2) conducted a systematic review of available outcomes and their psychometric properties; (3) constructed a Driver diagram summarizing available evidence associated with EWB; and, (4) prepared a process map. Facilitated meetings allowed selection and review of feedback following rapid-cycle evaluations of proposed structure, process and outcome indicators. <b>Results:</b> The structure indicator is the proportion of staff with appropriate education and training in EWB and access to experts and resources. The process indicator is the proportion of SCI/D patients who were screened for depression and anxiety symptoms at rehabilitation admission and rehabilitation discharge. The intermediary outcome is the proportion of SCI/D patients at risk for depression or anxiety at rehabilitation discharge based on screening symptom scores. The final outcomes are: (a) proportion of individuals at risk for depression or anxiety based on screening symptom scores; and (b) proportion of individuals who received referral for EWB services or intervention. <b>Conclusion:</b> The proposed indicators have a low administrative burden and will ensure feasibility of screening for depression and anxiety at important transition points for individuals with SCI/D. We anticipate that the current structures have inadequate resources for at-risk individuals identified during the screening process.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.330 · 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