Factors Influencing Occupational Competence in Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore and compare the perception of productive activities (studies, work) held by young adults with schizophrenia and their therapists. Method: An exploratory qualitative study was carried out using the Model of Competence (Rousseau, 2003). Nine client-therapist dyads were recruited. Data collected were transcribed, coded, and processed with QSR.N'VIVO (2002). Results: Therapists and clients agree about the personal characteristics (e.g., motivation, coping) and activities (e.g., prior work or study experiences) that have positive (e.g., social skills) or negative influence (e.g., symptoms of schizophrenia) on competence in productive activities. Their perceptions differ about the environmental characteristics that influence competence: some elements are mentioned only by clients (e.g., work environment) or therapists (e.g., using community resources). Conclusion: The framework offered by a specialized clinic can promote exchanges and the congruence of perceptions between therapists and clients. Interventions focusing on the environment should be further developed in relation to productive activities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".