MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EXPLORING THE PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF A NOVEL FUNCTIONAL ACTIVITIES PROGRAM

2017· other· en· W6965140833 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationStroke (engine)Qualitative researchPromotion (chess)PerceptionCognitionActivities of daily livingOccupational therapyUpper limb

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Canadian Stroke Best Practice Guidelines suggest that in order to enhance motor control and restore function in the upper limb after stroke, stroke survivors need to engage in specific functional tasks that are progressive and repetitive. In accordance, our team developed a program aimed at enhancing recovery of the upper limb through task-specific activities, the promotion of bilateral upper limb use, the development of cognitive and perceptual skills, and education. Purpose: To describe the development and survivor-clinician perspectives of an occupationally-based inpatient functional activity program (FAP). Methods: Using a qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews were completed with survivors and clinicians involved in the FAP over a 4-month period of time. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data was analyzed using strategies for theme development. Results: Participants included 9 stroke survivors and 5 staff members. Stroke survivors reported the activities used were real-world and perceived the FAP to facilitate social interaction, problem solving, and confidence. Survivors expressed wanting more choice in activity selection, a better match between challenge and current functioning, and also the potential for homework components outside of therapy time. Conclusions: The FAP is an evidence-based program that could be successfully implemented in an inpatient stroke rehabilitation setting and the objectives are achievable. Importantly, survivors and staff reported positively about the content and importance of using real-world activities. Future research into the efficacy of this program is warranted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.128 · 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
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)Same topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207