The Use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as an Outcome of a Pain Management Program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last three decades have seen the emergence of measures to assess the efficacy of pain management programs. Recently there has been interest in measures that assess clients' perceptions of their own performance. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) (Law et al, 1994, 1998) is an individualized measure designed for use by occupational therapists to detect a self-perceived change in occupational performance problems over time. It may be an important extra dimension to assessing the outcomes of pain management programs. The aim of this study was to ascertain the validity of the COPM as an outcome measure for the Liverpool Pain Management Program. One hundred and six clients were recruited to the study and 87 clients completed a battery of tests including the COPM at baseline, end of program and 3 month follow-up. Results of the study demonstrated that the COPM showed good evidence of concurrent criterion validity and sensitivity to change.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it