Les valeurs des ergothérapeutes : résultats quantitatifs d’une étude exploratoire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent interest for the values in occupational therapy and of occupational therapists can be observed in the literature, because such values are at the heart of professional identity. Yet, studies have reported that many occupational therapists have an ambiguous professional identity and important diversity exists in academic publications regarding these values. This study aimed at determining the importance that is granted by occupational therapists to the values of occupational therapy and the values reported by occupational therapists in the literature. We wanted to verify associations between the importance granted to these values, as well as a) the number of years of professional experience and b) the fact of having undertaken training in ethics. Finally, our study also had as an objective to examine if the importance granted to specific values differed depending on the university or the professional training. A survey containing socio- demographic questions and ratings of 60 values was completed by 26 occupational therapists trained and working in Quebec. Spearman correlations, a Kruskal- Wallis test and a Mann-Whitney test were conducted. The values considered the most important by the largest and smallest number of participants were identified. Statistically significant associations were observed between the importance granted to certain values and the number of years of professional experience, having had training in ethics, and the University where this training was obtained. This exploratory study has permitted us to identify tendencies that deserve to be confirmed by a larger scale study. Our conclusions are innovative, because this is the first study reporting such associations.
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 | 0.016 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".