MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049054200 · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.837

Working With Uniqueness: Optimizing Vocational Strengths for People With Tourette Syndrome and Co-Morbidities

2012· article· en· W2049054200 on OpenAlexaff
D. Averns, Sonya L. Jakubec, Roger E. Thomas, Alex Link

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityUniversity of CalgaryAlberta College of Art + Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocational educationStudioPsychologySet (abstract data type)SculptureApprenticeshipUniquenessProcess (computing)Representation (politics)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapistApplied psychologyVisual artsPedagogyComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper shares discoveries from a grounded theory inspired study of “optimizing vocational strength's and the unique attributes of Tourette Syndrome and co-morbidities, including Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (or TS/TS+), in the workplace. This one year study featured 16 participants with various levels of workplace functioning and health status and was set in an art college. Data gathering methods included individual/group interviews alongside observations of, and products from, studio art workshops in drawing, sculpture, performance, and creative writing. Data collected in this way elicited a breadth and depth of representation and harnessed the uniqueness and imagination of participants pivotal to recovery and supporting vocational optimization. The process of “optimizing vocational strengths” is revealed both visually and textually in this paper and is instructive for educational and vocational supports for people with TS/TS+.

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)0.000
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia - Social and Behavioral SciencesSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207