MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145921903 · doi:10.5014/ajot.57.5.489

The Functional Repertoire of the Hand and Its Application to Assessment

2003· review· en· W2145921903 on OpenAlexaff
Marliese Kimmerle, Lynda Mainwaring, Marlene Borenstein

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepertoireFunction (biology)Task (project management)Helping handMovement assessmentPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceCognitive psychologyHuman–computer interactionMedicineMotor skillNeuroscienceEngineeringSystems engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional assessment of the hand typically involves evaluation of proficiency using a test battery rather than identifying the range of hand skills available to a client. Establishing a clients hand function by reference to the movement repertoire of his or her fully-functioning hand offers numerous benefits for clinicians and researchers. A functional repertoire model of the hand is proposed as a framework for guiding assessment and therapy. The model identifies four main components relating to hand function: personal constraints, hand roles, hand actions, and task parameters. The model provides a common language for assessment, program development, and research across populations. Application here is to hand-injured clients, but the framework is equally valuable for hand function assessment of developmentally and physically challenged individuals, persons with neuromuscular disorders, or geriatric populations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations69
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207