Activities people with cognitive deficits want to continue mastering – A scoping study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction To date, potential difficulties that people with cognitive deficits meet in everyday life are relatively well known, but in which activities mastery is desired, and why, is less researched. The aim of this study was to develop deeper knowledge about activities that people with cognitive deficits want to continue mastering in everyday life and the reasons why these activities were desired. Method In the frame of a scoping study, articles were gathered and charted. Sixteen qualitative studies were selected as meeting the aim of the study and analyzed with a descriptive-interpretative method. Findings The analysis of the studies showed that the desired activities conveyed social values or independence, supported significant roles, diminished negative influence on other people, and increased health and safety. Linkages, in the form of dependencies between the desired activities, were also identified. Conclusion When planning for interventions for facilitating everyday activities, for example with technology, it is beneficial to consider both safety and values that are more closely related to meaningfulness and wellbeing. Most difficult activities were identified as hindering outdoor activities, and targeting those activities might be most valuable for enabling active everyday lives for this group.
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 | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".