MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097043895 · doi:10.1044/arii16.1.8

The ICF: A Classification System and Conceptual Framework Ideal for Audiological Rehabilitation

2009· article· en· W2097043895 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Pierre Gagné, Mary Beth Jennings, Kenneth Southall

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its Instrumentation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalWestern UniversityInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthBiopsychosocial modelRehabilitationConceptual frameworkApplied psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 2001, the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health, commonly referred to as the ICF (WHO, 2001), which is a biopsychosocial classification system of health. It provides a common framework for describing consequences of health conditions and specifically for understanding the dimensions of health and functioning. The ICF is particularly relevant for rehabilitation sciences because the health conditions of people seeking rehabilitation services are typically chronic and the associated impairments cannot be cured. The present article highlights some key differences between a curative and a rehabilitative approach to health services. Then, the components of the IFC are defined, described, and illustrated. The main characteristics of the classification system are outlined. Finally, some important features associated with the use of the ICF as a conceptual framework for clinical services in rehabilitative audiology are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its InstrumentationSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207