Étude rétrospective d'une pratique d'évaluation de la conduite automobile en santé mentale adulte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In adult mental health, there are few practice guidelines for occupational therapists with regards to the assessment of driving capacities. PURPOSE: This article describes a clinical approach, with regards to driving assessments, in adult mental health. METHOD: A retrospective study was completed from a chart review of clients seen in occupational therapy, between 1999 and 2004, in the psychiatric out-patient clinic of a university-affiliated hospital. FINDINGS: The occupational therapists are not offering road tests but results on the following tests discriminate those individuals considered safe or unsafe drivers: "Trail A" (p=0,0004), "Trail B" (p=0,0005), "Cognitive Behavioural Driver's Inventory" (p=0.006), "Continuous Performance Test" (p=0,001). IMPLICATIONS: Results on some psychometric measures have an impact on recommendations made by occupational therapists assessing driving capacities. Future studies should include road test performance of clients in adult mental health.
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 | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".