La perception d'efficacité personnelle comme facteur associé à la participation sociale des adultes ayant subi un traumatisme cranio-cérébral
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identification of the factors facilitating the social participation of adults who have sustained a traumatic brain injury can help occupational therapists with the direction for their interventions. Earlier studies centered on identifying the socio-demographic characteristics and the disabilities associated with social participation. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the association between perceived self-efficacy, a positive concept derived from social cognitive theory and social participation. METHODS: A cross-sectional and correlational research design was used with 53 adults who sustained a traumatic brain injury between 1995 and 2000 and lived in their natural environment. Two measuring tools were used: a self-administered questionnaire evaluating the perceived self-efficacy and a questionnaire evaluating social participation, administered by an examiner through a face-to-face interview. RESULTS: The results indicate that the perceived self-efficacy explains 40% of the variance of the social participation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This association suggests that social cognitive theory can constitute a reference model for occupational therapists working with this clientele.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".