Le Profil du Loisir, un instrument prometteur en ergothérapie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of leisure activities are well known, few instruments have been specifically designed to measure a person's engagement in their leisure activities and to assess the personal or environmental factors affecting their capacity to participate in leisure activities. PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to present the steps leading to the development of the Profil du Loisir between 1990 and 2002. METHODS: The planning, construction, and validation of the tool were done according to the steps suggested by Benson and Clark (1982). The first versions were tested by occupational therapists on individuals with traumatic brain injuries. RESULTS: The validation led to the development of the final version (3.0). The inter-rater reliability of the instrument was rated from acceptable (kappa 0.21-0.4) to very good (0.61-0.80) and the test-retest reliability was rated from acceptable to moderate (0.41-0.60). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The Profil du Loisir is a promising tool that invites occupational therapists to systematically consider and assess client leisure time in their practice.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".