MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017524569 · doi:10.1177/000841740807500504

Agency and Engagement: Older Adults' Experiences of Participation in Occupation during Home-Based Rehabilitation

2008· article· en· W2017524569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kjersti Vik, Louise Nygård, Lena Borell, Staffan Josephsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)RehabilitationPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Activities of daily livingGerontologyOccupational therapyEveryday lifeSocial engagementPatient participationMedicineMEDLINESociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Participation is considered the main goal of rehabilitation and occupational therapy intervention. This study focuses on older adults'participation in occupations in daily life when receiving home-based rehabilitation. PURPOSE: To explore how older adults with disabilities participate in daily life subsequent to hospitalization. METHODS: A prospective case-orientated design was used, with repeated interviews with three older adults and a constant comparative method of analysis. FINDINGS: Two main categories emerged as the participants' experience of participation: "Continuing to be an agent in daily life"captured the participants' decision making, choosing, and acting in daily life. "Life itself is the agent" identified how the participants, despite their strong wishes to be agents, also could let their participation be directed by their engagement in ongoing daily life. IMPLICATIONS: The findings identified participation as a dynamic engagement ranging from individual agency, including decision-making, choosing, and acting in daily life, to letting life itself be the agent. The emphasis on agency in the participants' experiences challenges rehabilitation professionals to find further means of facilitating the clients' possibilities of being agents in their daily lives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.199
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207