MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6963761046 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.4833153

Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations: Rehabilitation, Recovery, and Community Participation following Stroke. Part Two: Transitions and Community Participation Following Stroke

2020· other· en· W6963761046 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunity participationBest practiceStroke (engine)RehabilitationSet (abstract data type)Acute strokeCommunity education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sixth update of the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations for Transitions and Community Participation following Stroke is a comprehensive set of evidence-based guidelines addressing issues faced by people following an acute stroke event. Establishing a coordinated and seamless system of care that supports progress achieved during the initial recovery stages throughout the transition to the community is more essential than ever as the medical complexity of people with stroke is also on the rise. All members of the health-care team engaged with people with stroke, their families, and caregivers are responsible for partnerships and collaborations to ensure successful transitions and return to the community following stroke. These guidelines reinforce the growing and changing body of research evidence available to guide ongoing screening, assessment, and management of individuals following stroke as they move from one phase and stage of care to the next without “falling through the cracks.” It also recognizes the growing role of family and informal caregivers in providing significant hours of support that disrupt their own lives and responsibilities and addresses their support and educational needs. According to Statistics Canada, in 2012, eight million Canadians provided care to family members or friends with a long-term health condition, disability, or problems associated with aging. These recommendations incorporate aspects that were previously in the rehabilitation module for the purposes of streamlining, and both modules should be reviewed in order to provide comprehensive care addressing recovery and community reintegration and participation. These recommendations cover topics related to support and education of people with stroke, families, and caregivers during transitions and community reintegration. They include interprofessional planning and communication, return to driving, vocational roles, leisure activities and relationships and sexuality, and transition to long-term care.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.010

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207