Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The value placed on and extent of involvement of occupational therapists in research is unknown. This article reports on the quantitative part of a mixed methods study conducted to establish the multi-dimensional factors that influence Research Orientation. A cross-sectional descriptive design was employed. Data was collected using a previously validated instrument, the Edmonton Research Orientation Survey (EROS). The survey was posted to all occupational therapists on the HPCSA register (2279 occupational therapists) in August 2007. A thirteen percent response rate (298 of 2279) was achieved. Most respondents (177/275, 67%) had high overall EROS scores (mean = 133.6 and median =136.) indicating a strong research orientation. With further analyses it became clear that occupational therapists value research ( 195 / 290, 67%) and see themselves at the leading edge of the profession (214 / 291, 73% ) yet evidence based practice (149 / 285, 52%) and involvement in research is limited (76 / 275, 28%). The results suggest that although occupational therapists value research they do not engage in applying research in practice or participate in execution of research. The positive research orientation provides an opportunity for the profession to use the available potential to increase research output.
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 | 0.019 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".