‘Optimal’ participation: A reflective look
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is mounting interest by professionals working in the rehabilitation sciences related to the concept of participation, especially given the increasing numbers of individuals worldwide living with chronic illnesses. It is now internationally agreed that participation level is influenced by both personal and environmental factors. The question arises as to the meaning of 'optimal' participation. The main objective of this article is to provide a reflective look at the concept of participation and the meaning of 'optimality' for individuals with and without disability and to explore both in relation to response shift. METHOD: Similarities in definitions of participation are first examined. Normal participation level is discussed leading to an 'optimal' level based on normality. Cases are used to illustrate normality as well as how 'optimal' participation can be achieved through a transition period despite disabilities caused by a health condition such as a stroke. RESULTS: 'Optimal' participation would rely on a perfect fit between an individual's reality (how activities and roles are actually realised) and expectations of how activities and roles should be accomplished. A transition period, including a response shift, following an acute event or onset of a chronic condition can lead to an optimal participation level despite persisting disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of the meaning of optimal participation and its association to response shift is important to clinical practice. Interventions aimed at optimizing participation through assisting clients who are experiencing a response shift can then be designed to maximize participation and concomitantly, quality of life in those with chronic health conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".