Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite these challenges, a recent search of the database Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature generated 238 citations, using the terms and and limiting the search to the years 1998 to 2008.Many of the retrieved articles were from practice magazines and newsletters rather than peer-reviewed journals. [...] the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (CAOT) Board of Directors approved a new policy in June of 2008 that ensures all studies funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and accepted for publication in the Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy will be available through an open access mechanism on the CAOT website. Parmi les obstacles majeurs, citons notamment le manque de temps, l'acces limite aux ressources de la bibliotheque et le manque de competences pour trouver et evaluer les faits scientifiques lorsque l'acces a ces faits est possible (Closs et Lewin, 1998; Dubouloz, Egan, Vallerand et von Zweck, 1999; Humphris, Littlejohns, Victor, O'Halloran et Peacock, 2000; McCluskey, 2003;McCluskey et Cusick, 2002).Malgre ces difficultes, une recherche effectuee recemment dans la base de donnees Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature a partir des termes « evidence-based practice » et « occupational therapy » a produit 238 citations et ce, en limitant la recherche aux annees 1998 a 2008.
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 | 0.342 | 0.675 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.047 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.043 | 0.086 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.055 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.114 | 0.034 |
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".