Soziale Partizipation in der Freizeit : Sicht von Schulkindern mit Spina bifida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4 Soziale Partizipation in der Freizeit: Sicht von Schulkindern mit Spina bifida 5 1. Theoretischer Hintergrund 5 1.1 Problemstellung 5 1.2 Beschrieb des Krankheitsbildes 6 1.2.1 Einteilung in der ICD-10 6 1.2.2 Definition 6 1.2.3 Formen der Spina bifida 6 1.2.4 Symptomatik 7 1.2.5 Auswirkungen der Spina bifida auf den Alltag 8 1.3 Fragestellung 9 1.4 Ziel 9 1.5 Begriffsdefinitionen 9 1.5.1 Freizeit und Spiel 9 1.5.2 Ergotherapie 10 1.5.3 Schulalter 10 1.5.4 Soziale Partizipation 11 2. Ergebnisse 12 2.1 Methode 12 2.2 Einund Ausschlusskriterien 13 2.3 Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOP-E) 14 2.3.1 Begrundung der Wahl des CMOP-E 14 2.3.2 Entstehung und Schwerpunkte des Modells 15 2.3.3 Bereiche des CMOP-E 16 2.3.4 Canadian Practice Process Framework (CPPF) 17 2.3.5 Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) 19 2.4 Ergebnisse aus wissenschaftlicher Literatur 19 2.4.1 Hauptstudien 19 2.4.2 Soziales Umfeld 21 2.4.3 Person 25 2.4.4 Implikationen fur die Praxis 25
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".