Revisão sobre avaliações para indicação de dispositivos de tecnologia assistiva
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to identify by the literature review the most common assessments used for indication and implementation of assistive technology devices. The surveywas conducted in six databases: CINAHAL, Eric, GALE, LILACS, MEDLINE e PsycInfo. There is no register of Brazilian studies and the results showed that among 29 selected articles, 15 assessments was identifi ed and only 7 were specifi c of AT.For the analysis, two types of analyses were performed: the bibliometric and the critical. The results showed that assessments Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive technology - QUEST, Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Device Scale- PIADS, Individually Prioritized Problem Assessment - IPPA e a Matching Person and Technology- MPT were the most cited. It can be observed that the evaluations that prioritize personal and functional aspects are gaining priorityby part of OT professionals, but only the MPT (ATD PA) was translated for use in Brazil.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".