Participación de terapia ocupacional en contextos de conflicto armado y postconflicto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To identify professional experiences of Occupational Therapy in Colombian and international contexts of armed conflict and post-conflict. Methods A qualitative systematic review of the literature between 2005-2014 in five analytical categories: professional experiences, problem situations, populations, theoretical frameworks, and procedures. Results 78 papers were retrieved. Colombian context: the models most used are human occupation and occupational performance; the most frequent problem is forced displacement. International context: 19 countries documented experiences; the Canadian model and the community-based rehabilitation model are most used; the main problem situations are forced displacement, refugee status, and attention to members of the armed forces. Both contexts highlight procedures such as artistic activities and interventions related to social welfare and social-inclusion. Conclusions Graduate these are the main source of Colombian experiences, though few are published; there are a few studies about victim population (demobilized). The rural sector as a typical scenario of armed conflict and a context of displacement have been seen as relevant. Frequent conceptual categories and practices have been introduced from the critical perspective of Occupational Therapy which reinforce the role of the professional in phenomena of social exclusion and violence, as a transformational agent that addresses the socio-political dimension of human occupation. These findings posit challenges for professionals and academics to publish, to work with populations (victims or not), to approach training and practice in rural contexts, and to recognize the role of the professional as an agent that transcends the public health dimension of human occupation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".