Enhancing the conceptual clarity and utility of the international classification of functioning, disability & health: the potential of a new graphic representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To present a new graphic representation of the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF), entitled the ICF-conceptual revision (ICF-CR). The ICF-CR aims to be clearer and more usable tool than the ICF graphic currently used by starting to address criticisms of the ICF raised in the literature, with a focus on positioning quality of life (QoL) in relation to the ICF’s other components. Method: This is a conceptual paper based on a review of criticisms of the ICF and related literature published on human functioning. Results: In addition to criticisms of the current graphic, four criticisms of the ICF are discussed in relation to the development of the ICF-CR, including: the lack of development of biopsychosocial theory, the lack of clarity between activities and participation, the language used, and the absence of QoL. General systems theory is used to help construct the new graphic in addressing these criticisms and to position QoL. Conclusions: The ICF-CR is designed to be a more responsive graphic of human functioning; one which enhances the clarity of principles integral to the ICF, including biopsychosocial theory and universalism. It is hoped the ICF-CR will promote continued discussion toward the goal of enhancing the ICF, both visually and conceptually.Implications for RehabilitationThe International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) is a widely used framework in the disability and rehabilitation domains; however, many criticisms of the framework and its current graphic exist.The ICF-conceptual revision (ICF-CR) is a new graphic representation of the ICF that enhances its biopsychosocial content, positions quality of life (QOL) as an emergent component, and allows for dynamic visualization which is more in line with the actual nature of human functioning and QOL.Users of the ICF may find the ICF-CR useful to incorporate into their own work.
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 | 0.051 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".