MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148699573 · doi:10.5014/ajot.59.2.209

Professional Strategies in Work-Related Practice: An Exploration of Occupational and Physical Therapy Roles and Approaches

2005· article· en· W2148699573 on OpenAlexaff
Rosemary Lysaght, Joanne Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational therapyRehabilitationIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionScope (computer science)Scope of practiceWork (physics)PsychologyMedical educationMedicinePhysical therapyNursingPolitical scienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both occupational and physical therapy have historical roots in worker rehabilitation; however, the core philosophies and areas of expertise of these professions suggest there may be inherent differences in the ways each approaches therapeutic intervention. This study surveyed 600 occupational and physical therapists in the United States to determine the nature and scope of work-related practice, and the degree to which occupation-based strategies are used by either profession. The overall response rate was 54% (n = 324), and 76% of respondents (n = 246) were actively engaged in providing work-related services. Results indicate that both professions provide all services commonly associated with work-related therapy in almost equal proportions. Few significant differences were identified between the professions in terms of approaches to therapy, and findings did not reveal the use of occupation-based interventions to any greater degree by occupational therapists.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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