2012 Therapeutic Recreation Curriculum Survey
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".