MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019611152 · doi:10.1177/000841741007700207

Sensory Processing Patterns and Daily Activity Preferences of Israeli Children

2008· article· en· W2019611152 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Batya Engel‐Yeger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensory processingSensory systemPreferencePsychologyIntervention (counseling)Occupational therapyActivities of daily livingPsychological interventionDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyMedicineCognitive psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: One determinant of participation is activity preferences, which may be influenced by sensory processing patterns. PURPOSE: To compare daily activity preferences of Israeli children who have typical versus atypical sensory processing patterns, according to age and gender. METHODS: Twenty-five children with atypical sensory processing patterns and 109 typical peers aged 6 - 10.75 years completed the Preference for Activities of Children (PAC) questionnaire. Sensory processing patterns were determined according to the Short Sensory Profile (SSP). RESULTS: Children with atypical sensory processing patterns showed greater preference for active physical activities. Lower energy level was correlated with greater preference for self-improvement activities. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Activity preferences may be affected by children's sensory processing patterns. These effects are minimal among children with atypical sensory processing but no other co-morbidities. Evaluating these effects may assist in establishing occupational therapy interventions, facilitate children's engagement in the intervention, and enhance their participation in daily living.

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)0.000
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.358
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.129 · 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

Citations50
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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