Content Analysis of Five Occupational Therapy Journals, 2006–2010: Further Review of Characteristics of the Quantitative Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. To analyze the content of publications in 5 occupational therapy journals to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the literature base from 2006 to 2010. METHOD. A content analysis for 2006 through 2010 of the American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT), Australian Occupational Therapy Journal (AOTJ), British Journal of Occupational Therapy (BJOT), Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy (CJOT), and Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy (SJOT) was completed. RESULTS. AJOT and SJOT had the highest percentage of articles focusing on physical disabilities, whereas a majority of articles in AOTJ, BJOT, and CJOT focused on education. SJOT published articles with the highest median number of participants in all research designs excluding descriptive studies. The majority of the research articles were descriptive for all journals. CONCLUSION. From 2006 to 2010, AJOT provided stronger evidence conducted at higher levels than the other journals by publishing more articles investigating interventions used to support clinical 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 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 | 0.032 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.113 | 0.084 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".