MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144892935 · doi:10.5014/ajot.58.2.211

Client-Oriented Role Evaluation (CORE): The Development of a Clinical Rehabilitation Instrument to Assess Role Change Associated With Disability

2004· article· en· W2144892935 on OpenAlexaff
Darene Toal-Sullivan, Peter R. Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCanadian Association of Occupational Therapists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationCore (optical fiber)Process (computing)PsychologyApplied psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationProcess managementMedicineComputer sciencePhysical therapyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the development of an instrument, the Client-Oriented Role Evaluation (CORE), to help meet the needs of rehabilitation clients and clinicians in their joint efforts to define realistic and meaningful therapeutic goals. The CORE is based on a model that captures the relationship among identity, roles, constituent occupations, and personal and environmental determinants. The model encourages a comprehensive approach to examining role change and role loss that occurs with disability. The instrument consists of a series of steps in which role changes are identified, role values are assigned, and satisfaction with role performance is rated at different points in time across the rehabilitation process. A description of the CORE development is presented along with preliminary data from clients involved in a chronic pain rehabilitation program.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.470
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.111 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207