Comparing the Disability Creation Process and International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The conceptualisation of participation is important for both clinicians and researchers. Purpose. Analyse and compare two conceptual models, the Disability Creation Process (DCP) and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), with particular emphasis on the participation component. METHOD: Conceptual comparative analysis of the DCP and ICF models focused on participation. RESULTS: We found more differences than similarities between the DCP and ICF models. Similarities concerned approaches, objectives, elements of the models' components, and, to some extent, the participation component itself Differences were mainly in the underlying models, conceptualisation of components including participation, and the measurement tools of participation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Based on the results of this conceptual comparison, occupational therapists working in clinical and research settings are encouraged to consider using the DCP, which is an excellent model to choose in regard to participation. Empirical studies are still needed to clarify the concept of participation.
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 | 0.062 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".