A scoping review on occupational and self identity after a brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Persons with brain injury experience a shift in their self identity that is underpinned by work loss and changes to their worker role. However, little is known on how to assist a worker with a brain injury re-establish their occupational identity. Thus, the objective of this article is to present the results of a scoping review undertaken to examine the literature on occupational identity and self identity after a brain injury. METHODS: A scoping review was performed using the keywords traumatic, acquired brain injury, occupational, and self identity. Articles were narrowed through three phases which involved reviewing articles to ensure a thorough discussion of identity after a brain injury was included and to highlight the research questions. RESULTS: In total 16 articles and 3 theses were included. No articles were retrieved on occupational identity after a brain injury. Fourteen articles discussed the loss of self identity experienced after a brain injury while three articles highlighted rehabilitation programs. CONCLUSIONS: Research indicates there are extensive changes to identity after a brain injury and this impacts returning to previous occupations. This knowledge can further our understanding of returning to occupations after a brain injury and the impact on occupational identity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".