MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Choosing the most appropriate environment to evaluate independence in everyday activities: Home or clinic?

2006· article· en· W2130734190 on OpenAlex
Carolina Bottari, Élisabeth Dutil, Clément Dassa, Constant Rainville

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsActivities of daily livingContext (archaeology)Independence (probability theory)Occupational therapyPsychologyMedicineAcquired brain injuryGerontologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyRehabilitationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aim: To better document independence in activities of daily living (ADL), particularly with persons with traumatic brain injury, the influence of the context in which performance‐based assessments are administered must be considered. This paper examines the issue of context in ADL assessment according to specific criteria. Main Findings: Overall, the limited number of studies found to have investigated the influence of context (home, clinic) on performance‐based ADL assessments in persons with cerebral damage does not provide clear evidence to support the superiority of either environment. Conclusion: The issue of context in ADL assessments has been minimally documented and can be explained by the complexity of data collection. Occupational therapists will need to address this issue.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.355
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