MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054452207 · doi:10.1300/j194v01n02_06

Intergenerational Wellness Programming in Occupational Therapy

2003· article· en· W2054452207 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Victoria Pearlman, Minetta Wallingford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intergenerational Relationships · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternshipOccupational therapyMedical educationPromotion (chess)GerontologyPsychologyCorporationHealth promotionPollockMeaning (existential)NursingMedicinePublic healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An intergenerational Wellness program was implemented by occupational therapy students at Laboure House located in Chicago, Illinois, in the fall of 2001 as part of a grant funded by the National Service Corporation in conjunction with the Association for Gerontology in Higher Education. Program goals include: (a) developing students' skills in evaluation and Wellness programming by participating in an intergenerational service learning project, (b) providing occupation-based Wellness programming for the residents, and (c) promoting Wellness for the residents by encouraging them to find meaning in their lives through a variety of wellness/health promotion activities. Outcome measures used to assess change in the residents included the COPM (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure) (Law, Baptiste, Carswell, McColl, Polatajko, & Pollock, 1998) and the SF-36 (Ware, 1992). Tools used to assess students' performance included internship assessment forms and qualitative data from students' reflective journals. Preliminary results indicate improvement in awareness of Wellness and health promotion activities by the residents as well as a positive learning experience for students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intergenerational RelationshipsSame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207