Clinical Report: Use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in Vision Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) has gained wide acceptance in general occupational therapy research and practice, however, the use of the COPM in assistive technology assessments and outcomes is not as well documented. PURPOSE: This clinical report discusses the utility of the COPM in assistive technology, as illustrated by the assessment and follow-up of clients requiring high technology vision aids. RESULTS: The COPM makes important contributions to the outcomes of providing vision aids. The COPM ensures a needs review that incorporates all areas of occupational performance, which in turn directs the clinician to match the technology to client needs. From a clinical perspective, the quantitative follow-up data are helpful to determine clients' improvement in occupational performance as well as their satisfaction with the assistive technology. For administrative purposes, the COPM results provides accountability to the funding agency. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The COPM can be readily integrated into the assessment and follow-up of assistive technology service delivery and adds value to both components of the process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".