Perspectives on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: Child and Youth Version (ICF-CY) and Occupational Therapy Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Classifying disability for children and youth has typically meant describing a diagnosis or developmental lag. The publication of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Child & Youth version (ICF-CY) marks a global paradigm shift in the conceptualization and classification of childhood disability. Knowledge and awareness of the ICF-CY has been slow to diffuse within occupational therapy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to foster the integration of the ICF-CY into occupational therapy practice with children and youth. KEY ISSUES: Research describes positive trends in using the ICF-CY for cross-disciplinary communication; further clarity and development is warranted around activity and participation categories and functional profiles. IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapy can contribute to the evolution of the ICF-CY, but must clarify its complementary perspective and knowledge base. If the ICF-CY can be further integrated into occupational therapy systems, it holds promise for shifting practice patterns and creating professional opportunities.
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 | 0.042 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| 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".