Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Emergence and burgeoning of specialized health care structures have contributed to the diversity in health services. Inadvertently, the separation and resultant independent functioning of health and rehabilitation organizations have impeded opportunities for health care workers to interact with one another. Consequently, providers may lack knowledge on available health services within communities in which they preside. Educational approaches that can assist health professionals improve awareness of services across organizational divides are needed. OBJECTIVES: The new International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF), offers a multidimensional view of health, which can be used in education sessions to increase provider awareness of how health is mediated across health paradigms. This paper explores the conceptual basis of the ICF and its use in promoting a broader view of health essential for treating consumers with complex health problems and enhancing knowledge sharing amongst professionals. METHODS: A single case study design is used to demonstrate how the ICF's conceptual framework offers providers a means to promote mutual understanding of differences in health services and to assist them in sharing knowledge on the services provided with others. CONCLUSION: Conceptually, the ICF can be used as a basis for structuring inter-organizational educational initiatives to increase knowledge sharing amongst organizations and health care workers. In addition, introducing health professionals to a multidimensional view of health can assist them to understand the breadth of health services in the community and to consider a more comprehensive set of health determinants and dimensions in caring for consumers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".