A survey of paediatric occupational therapists in the United Kingdom
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the work of paediatric occupational therapists in the UK, and to compare the results with similar surveys carried out in the US, Australia and Canada. A postal questionnaire survey was sent to 212 members of the National Association of Paediatric Occupational Therapists. Questions were asked about a wide range of issues pertinent to paediatric practice. The results showed that data collected in the UK are similar to those from the three other countries-- for example, in the unique areas of work, such as assessment for adaptive equipment, training in activities of daily living and fine motor skills training, and that there is also some overlap with other disciplines. The study had some limitations in terms of respondents accessed and scope of questions asked. It highlighted a number of areas for further research, one being to identify what undergraduate teaching needs to be made available to students who want to work with children. Several conclusions are drawn, principally that children's occupational therapists tend to remain in the specialization for several years and make good use of postgraduate courses to enhance their practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 it