MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132394227 · doi:10.3233/wor-2004-00331

A new approach in vocational rehabilitation in Iceland: Preliminary report

2004· article· en· W2132394227 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristín Siggeirsdóttir, Unnur Alfreðsdóttir, Guðrún Einarsdóttir, Brynjólfur Jónsson

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationVocational rehabilitationVocational educationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyPsychologyMedicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lack of vocational rehabilitation in Iceland inspired the Janus Rehabilitation initiative in the year 2000. The team currently consists of two occupational therapists, a social worker, a physiotherapist, a psychologist, and a physician. Janus uses resources from local education establishments and is located at the Reykjavík Technical School. A client-centred approach is used, enabling a flexible rehabilitation timeframe. The aim is to help the client back to employment/education. Advantage is taken of the facilities of the school where integration between education and rehabilitation takes place. Forty individuals have been admitted, with a mean time from work of 2.9 years, (range: 0-11 years). Seventeen (43%) have returned to employment/education. Twenty-three of those entering the programme are still on invalidity pension. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measurement (COPM) shows improvement in occupational performance and satisfaction. The Icelandic Quality of Life measurement also shows improvement. The results have been promising. However, a larger group is needed in order to draw clear unequivocal conclusions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorkSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207