La régionalisation des services de réadaptation. Ce qu'en pensent les usagers dans le centre et l'est du Québec.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the situation of and difficulties encountered by users of a supraregional rehabilitation institute when they are transferred from the institute to facilities in their own regions, and to discover how they address these difficulties. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING: Regions in Quebec served by a physical rehabilitation institute (Institut de réadaptation en déficience physique de Québec). PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine people who used services at the institute and then sought rehabilitation in their own regions. METHOD: Telephone survey using a validated questionnaire with both open-ended and closed questions. MAIN FINDINGS: About 69% of users had difficulty obtaining adequate follow up in their regions; the regions lacked professionals with expertise; more efficient methods of communication are required; and physicians' role in providing continuity of care needs to be recognized. CONCLUSION: Providing continuity of care on a regional basis is a formidable challenge for the entire health and social services network, but ways of meeting this challenge are within reach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".