Sorting Pictures to Assess Participation in Life Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessPerspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language DisordersArticle1 Dec 2005Sorting Pictures to Assess Participation in Life Activities Katarina Haley, Kimberly Jenkins, Clay Hadden, Jenny Womack, Joseph Hall and Cathleen Schweiker Katarina Haley University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Google Scholar More articles by this author , Kimberly Jenkins University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Google Scholar More articles by this author , Clay Hadden University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Google Scholar More articles by this author , Jenny Womack University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Google Scholar More articles by this author , Joseph Hall University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Google Scholar More articles by this author and Cathleen Schweiker University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/nnsld15.4.11 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References Baum, C. M. (1995). The contribution of occupation to function in persons with Alzheimer’s disease.Journal of Occupation Science Australia ( 2 (2), 59–67. Google Scholar Baum, C. M., & Edwards, D. (2001). Activity card sort. St. Louis, MO: Washington University School of Medicine. Google Scholar Chapey, R., Duchan, J. F., Elman, R. J., Garcia, L. J., Kagan, A., Lyon, J. G., & Simmons-Mackie, N. (2001). Life participation approach to aphasia: A statement of values for the future.In R. Chapey (Ed.), Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic disorders (4th ed., pp. 235–245). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Google Scholar Everard, K. M. (1999). The relationship between reasons for activity and older adult well-being.Journal of Applied Gerontology, 18, 325–340. Google Scholar Herzog, A. R., Franks, M. M., Markus, H. R., & Holmberg, D. (1998). Activities and well-being in older age: Effects of self-concept and educational attainment.Psychology and Aging, 14, 179–185. Google Scholar Hirsch, F. M., & Holland, A. L. (2000). Beyond activity: Measuring participation in society and quality of life.In L.E. Worrall & C. M. Frattali (Eds.), Neurogenic communication disorders: A functional approach. (pp. 35–54). New York: Thieme. Google Scholar Katz, N., Karpin, H., Lak, A., Furman, T., & Hartman-Maier, A. (2003). Participation in occupational performance: Reliability and validity of the activity card sort.OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 23 (1), 10–17. Google Scholar Law, M., Baptiste, S., Carswell, A., McColl, M. A., Polatajko, H., & Pollock, N. (1998). The Canadian occupational performance measure (3rd ed.). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Association of Occupational Therapy. Google Scholar Paul, D. R., Frattali, C. M., Holland, A. L., Thompson, C. K., Caperton, C. J., & Slater, S. C. (2004). Quality of Communication Life Scale. Rockville, MD: ASHA. Google Scholar Perenboom, R. J. M., & Chorus, A. M. J. (2003). Measuring participation according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).Disability and Rehabilitation, 25 (11/12), 577–587. Google Scholar Ross, K. B., & Wertz, R. T. (2003). Quality of life with and without aphasia.Aphasiology, 17 (4), 355–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Simmons-Mackie, N., & Damico, J. (1995). Communicative competence in aphasia: Evidence from compensatory strategies.In M. L. Lemme (Ed.), Clinical Aphasiology 23 (pp. 95–105). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Google Scholar World Health Organization (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: Author Google Scholar Wyller, T. B., Holmen, J., Laake, P., & Laake, K. (1998). Correlates of subjective well-being in stroke patients.Stroke, 29(2), 363–367. Google Scholar Zimmer, Z., Hickey, T., & Searle, M. S. (1995). Activity participation and well-being among older people with arthritis.The Gerontologist, 35, 463–471. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 15Issue 4December 2005Pages: 11-15 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Dec 1, 2005 Metrics Downloaded 24 times Topicsasha-topicsasha-article-typesasha-sigsCopyright & Permissions© 2005 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF DownloadLoading ...
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".