MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102778249 · doi:10.3109/01942638.2012.680009

Perspectives on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: Child and Youth Version (ICF-CY) and Occupational Therapy Practice

2012· article· en· W2102778249 on OpenAlexafffund
Heidi Cramm, Alice Aiken, Debra Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthOccupational therapyOccupational sciencePsychologyClinical psychologyPhysical therapyMedicinePsychiatryRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In PediatricsSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207