O uso da Medida Canadense de Desempenho Ocupacional em estudos brasileiros: uma revisão sistemática
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COPM is characterized by a measure to be individualized, in which the subject self-assessment the activities most important that are in difficulty in their occupational performance. Objective: Systematically review studies of Brazilian researchers using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as evaluation method. Methodological procedures: A systematic review was performed from the PUBMED, MEDLINE (1997 - 2010), MEDLINE OLD (1966 - 1996), LILACS and SciELO. Results: There were 740 articles from the search term descriptors and free, and 278 of the PUBMED, 340 of the MEDLINE, 56 of the MEDLINE OLD, 51 of the LILACS, 15 of the SCIELO Brazil. Considering the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of 06 articles were selected for this review. Conclusions: In Brazil there are few studies using this evaluation method, although internationally is an important guide for clinical practice of occupational therapists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".