MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7048057115

Investigating the Efficacy of an Harness Café Program on Traumatic Brain Injury Survivors - A Case Series

2018· article· en· W7048057115 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryTest (biology)Outcome (game theory)Gait analysisCognitionGaitAcquired brain injuryPoison controlInjury prevention
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The University of Central Florida’s Knights on the Go Café offers survivors of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) the opportunity to rehabilitate in an immersive real world environment. Participants are able to work on integrating skills from multiple domains; including physical, cognitive, and social domains. The cafe is equipped with an overhead harness system allowing for mobility without the risk of fall or injury. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the harness café on functional outcome measures in participants over time. Impact was examined through a retrospective analysis of programmatic data including: 6 Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Functional Reach Test/Modified Functional Reach Test, Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), Timed Up and Go (TUG), 9-hole peg test (9HPT), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Data was collected for 3 participants between February 2016 and December 2017. Participant A1 improved on MoCA and TUG . Participant A2 made significant improvements in DGI, TUG, and 9HPT scores. Participant D improved with two of the four TUG conditions and 6MWT. Overall, participants had varied improvements in performance on the functional outcome measures. The immersive environment of the harness cafe may improve functional outcomes when physical therapy is no longer available. Additionally, the Knights on the Go Harness Café may be able to provide meaningful social relationships through observation and subjective reporting.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Crisis and Risk Communication ResearchSame topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207