Client Insights on Knowledge use and Access in Return to Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background An emerging trend in work practice is to move knowledge into the hands and minds of the end-users—our clients. Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate clients’ perspectives on their experiences, needs, and preferences for accessing and using information to make decisions in resuming work and living with disability. Methods Data from a grounded theory study with a sample of 14 participants with chronic disabilities from three regions across Canada were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Findings Barriers revealed the pervasive struggles of clients in accessing and communicating information. Clients need places, resource people as well as access to diverse formats, and material to support knowledge use. Clients engaged themselves in interpreting or acting upon knowledge through planning for contingencies, appraising the self in context, and reflecting and learning from others. Implications Findings advance the conceptual understanding of knowledge translation principles and processes needed to support clients in making decisions about return-to-work. Opportunities for policy change and for occupational therapists to support knowledge brokering and translation are elaborated.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".