A critical examination of school-based occupational therapy collaborative consultation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although collaborative consultation has been widely adopted in school-based occupational therapy practice, there is limited conceptual understanding of how collaboration contributes to educationally relevant outcomes for students with disabilities. Even without a clear understanding of the evidence related to school-based occupational therapy services, there continue to be decisions about funding and delivery of services. PURPOSE: This paper synthesizes and critically appraises the research literature on collaborative consultation services in school-based occupational therapy in order to provide program administrators with direction for critically examining decision making for service delivery in their districts. KEY ISSUES: Advancing occupational therapy practice in education settings requires a sound theoretical understanding of collaborative consultation. Distributed cognition offers a more robust understanding of the relationship between educator-therapist collaboration and outcomes of school-based occupational therapy services. IMPLICATIONS: This review concludes with two fundamental conditions necessary for collaboration between educators and occupational therapists to flourish.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it