MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020836522 · doi:10.2975/32.3.2009.155.161

Doing daily life: How occupational therapy can inform psychiatric rehabilitation practice.

2009· review· en· W2020836522 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Rehabilitation Journal · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational therapyCINAHLRehabilitationContext (archaeology)Mental healthPsychiatric rehabilitationPsychotherapistMEDLINEPsychiatryMedicinePsychologyMental illnessNursingPhysical therapyPsychological interventionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TOPIC: This paper provides an overview of occupational therapy in the context of psychiatric rehabilitation and mental health recovery. PURPOSE: The paper delineates practical aspects of occupational therapy's involvement in the mental health field with a discussion of occupation and the elements of conceptual models that guide the practice of occupational therapy. SOURCES USED: CINAHL, Psych Info, Medline. CONCLUSION: Occupational therapy is a key discipline in the field of psychiatric rehabilitation and brings to the field a strong theoretical and knowledge base along with unique procedures and practices. It is important for the psychiatric rehabilitation field to learn from all disciplines, including occupational therapy.

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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.405 · 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