Evaluating Work Readiness following Acquired Brain Injury: Building a Shared Understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite occupational therapists' role in work-related evaluations, there are no guidelines for evaluating clients' work readiness. PURPOSE: This study explored how occupational therapists evaluate work readiness following acquired brain injury in order to develop an integrated model of the factors, processes, stakeholders, and contextual elements relevant to this evaluation. METHODS: Ten occupational therapists with expertise in vocational and brain injury rehabilitation were interviewed. Data were analyzed using grounded theory methods to develop the work readiness evaluation model. FINDINGS: This model describes five processes formative to therapists' evaluation: (1) drawing upon diverse sources of information and perspectives; (2) assessing occupational capacity; (3) contextualizing occupational potential; (4) building a shared understanding of work readiness among stakeholders, including, clients, employers, insurers, and rehabilitation teams; and (5) transforming the work readiness question. IMPLICATIONS: The model highlights the importance of building a shared understanding amongst stakeholders and provides a provisional framework to guide practice.
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 | 0.060 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".