MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reflections on Using the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool in a Joint Learning Disability Team

2010· article· en· W2330485914 on OpenAlexaff
Doug Hawes, Daniel Houlder

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsLearning Partnership
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyOccupational therapyLearning disabilityPsychologyHuman servicesMedical educationMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing demands for evidence-based practice can cause dilemmas for practitioners, who are striving to identify assessments and outcome measures that are reliable in their practice setting, clinically useful and flexible. A 6-month preliminary study of the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST) in a community learning disability service yielded positive results by satisfying all these requirements. The occupational therapists found that the MOHOST facilitated consistent and evidence-based practice, without compromising professional autonomy or a client-centred focus. It appeared straightforward, flexible to use and applicable in a wide range of learning disability settings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.425
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.133 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207