An Agenda for Occupational Therapy's Contribution to Collaborative Chronic Disease Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To meet the needs of adults with chronic diseases, Canadian health care is moving toward more interdisciplinary, collaborative practice. There is limited high-quality evidence to support practice in this area. Occupational therapists can play a significant role in this area of practice and research. PURPOSE: To develop an agenda of priority areas within collaborative chronic disease research to which occupational therapy can make a contribution. METHODS: The project involved literature and Internet review, a consensus meeting with a range of stakeholders, a survey of occupational therapists, and synthesis of findings to create a research agenda. FINDINGS: An interdisciplinary and intersectoral group of stakeholders identified seven main priority areas. One priority is specific to occupational therapy while the remaining six cross disciplines. IMPLICATIONS: The research agenda can support funding applications and encourage interdisciplinary research collaboration to ultimately produce research evidence that can benefit people with chronic diseases.
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 | 0.332 | 0.209 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.047 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.049 |
| Research integrity | 0.051 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".