2012 Therapeutic Recreation Curriculum Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1996, 2003, and 2005, studies were conducted to examine therapeutic recreation curricula across the country and to describe their current status (Stumbo & Carter, 1999a, 1999b; Stumbo, Carter & Kim, 2004a, 2004b; Stumbo, Carter, & Folkerth, 2007). The intent of the present study was to re-examine, update, and compare therapeutic recreation curricula across the U.S. and Canada, organizing the results in a format similar to the original studies. Data are analyzed and reported in five sections: (a) university and unit, (b) faculty, (c) accreditation status, (d) curriculum, and (e) students. The results showed that therapeutic recreation curricula were located at universities and departments that varied widely. Faculty teach primarily with a load of four, three-hour courses per semester. Accreditation by COAPRT and CARTE are reported among the respondents. Curriculum changes included adding courses, internship requirements and assignments, and assessing student outcomes. Most undergraduate students who graduate are employed and become certified. Recommendations are made for therapeutic recreation stakeholders.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.005 |
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 it