Cuisine et schizophrénie : activité carrefour d’une évaluation écologique, ergothérapique et neuropsychologique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this exploratory study, the authors examine the various occupational and neuropsychological assessments used to analyze deficits qualitatively and quantitatively in patients with schizophrenia. Considering that it is necessary to further explore their repercussion on the performance of activity of daily living (ADL) and domestic activities (DA), they thus attempt to verify if the distinction between two levels of functional autonomy could translate at the cognitive and clinical levels in (25) 23 patients included in a program destined to young adults (schizophrenia spectrum DSM-IV criteria) in Montréal. These patients had the opportunity, within the clinical program, to submit to neuropsychological evaluations as well as evaluations offered by the occupational therapy service thanks to a tool frequently used by occupational therapists entitled Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS). The objective of this article is to conjugate two possible perspectives, drawn from two different disciplines, on a very current human activity such as "preparing meals" in people suffering from schizophrenia and which functioning of daily life is disturbed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".