MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

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

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Occupational Therapy JournalSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207