A comparison of Canadian and Australian paediatric occupational therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paediatric occupational therapists were surveyed regarding their practices in Canada and Australia. Two hundred and eighty-nine Canadian occupational therapists and 330 Australian occupational therapists participated representing response rates of 28.9% and 55% respectively. The majority of respondents were female (98%), between 30 and 49 years of age (69%), had a bachelor's degree, worked on average 10.5 years in paediatrics and spent well over 50% of their work time in direct client care. The largest client diagnostic groups in both countries were those with developmental delays, learning disabilities and neurological disorders. Diagnostic groups were used as an organizing framework to portray theory, assessment and intervention use. Overall, the theoretical models cited most frequently in both countries were: Sensory Integration, Sensory Processing/Sensory Diet, Client-Centred Practice, and Occupational Performance Model. Australian therapists employed the Occupational Performance Model (Australia) for all groups, while it was rarely utilized in Canada. Common assessment tools in both Australia and Canada were the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration, and the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. Intervention methods focused on: parental/care-giver education; activities of daily living/self-care skills training; client education; environmental modification; assistive devices; sensory integration techniques; sensory stimulation and sensory diet treatment methods; and neurodevelopmental techniques.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".