Validating the Potential of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health to Identify Barriers to and Facilitators of Consumer Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists need tools to identify barriers and facilitators to participation in societal roles. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the potential of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) two-level classification for use in occupational therapy. METHODS: A secondary analysis of an existing dataset was conducted to identify participation barriers and facilitators that mapped to the ICF and those that did not. RESULTS: A broad range of factors was captured across the components of the ICF. Findings also revealed enabling and disabling factors that were not evident in the ICF. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The ICF can support the identification of a broad range of external barriers and facilitators relevant to participation and of interest to occupational therapy. However, therapists must use other strategies to gain a comprehensive understanding of the nature, extent and consequences of barriers and facilitators that may exist in a given
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".