MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170547037 · doi:10.2182/cjot.05.0005

Using Occupation to Facilitate Self-Awareness in People who have Acquired Brain Injury: A Pilot Study

2005· article· en· W2170547037 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer Fleming, Sarah E. Lucas, Sue Lightbody

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcquired brain injurySelf-awarenessPsychologyRehabilitationIntervention (counseling)Occupational therapyAnxietyClinical psychologyPhysical therapyMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Impaired self-awareness in people who have had an acquired brain injury (ABI) is a complex phenomenon that impedes rehabilitation progress and outcome. PURPOSE: This pilot study investigated the effect of an occupation-based intervention program on the self-awareness and emotional status of people after ABI. Four male adults with impaired self-awareness following ABI participated in this study. Each received a 10-week individualized program that focused on the performance of three occupations for 1 to 2 hours per week. A facilitative approach was taken, using techniques to improve self-awareness described in the literature. Repeated measures of participants'self-awareness and emotional status were taken pre- and post-intervention, and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Results indicated preliminary support for the effectiveness of the program in facilitating participants' self-awareness. However, consideration of baseline and follow-up data indicated a complex picture. Increased anxiety was found to accompany improvements in participants' self-awareness in all four cases. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study will assist occupational therapists with program development for clients who have had an acquired brain injury.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.386
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.069 · 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

Citations51
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207