Level of agreement of occupational titles between persons with traumatic brain injury and their informants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Returning to work is one of the most important goals cited by individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, they may have difficulty evoking past work history. The ability to recall work history is integral to the rehabilitation process of return to work. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine 1) the level of agreement on the reporting of occupations and 2) if agreement is affected when specific occupational details are required in recall between adults with traumatic brain injury and their informants. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 259 individuals, with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury, and their selected informants (e.g. spouse, parent). Interviews were conducted separately for the individual and respective informant to gather information on type of occupation at time of injury and at time of interview. Reported occupations were coded using a standard classification system. Level of agreement was analyzed by interclass correlation coefficients and percent agreement, and the significance of bias was calculated. RESULTS: Participants were a mean age of 44.5 at time of study with 40% employed compared to 77% at time of injury. Agreement between participants and their informants for occupational title was high for both time periods though more so at the time of injury compared to current status. Level of agreement for specificity was moderate to high however, decreased as need for specificity of detail increased. CONCLUSION: While participant-informant responses appear to be reliable for occupational classification, when detailed information is required corroborating information is likely needed.
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 | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".