Limits of search filter development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus/aim/objective of the article is on assessing or treating patients referred for or receiving rehabilitation for a disability via occupational therapy (OT) for improving: mobility, functional status, activity impairments/limitations, or participation restrictions. The focus of services can include assessment, prognosis, treatment/prevention, and outcome evaluation. Types of services provided focus on preventing changes in occupation, maintaining current levels of occupation, and improving occupation that is diminished because of the impact of health conditions, injury, or changes in life circumstances. OT is focused on enabling people to participate in the occupations, which give meaning and purpose to their lives by facilitating changes in function (thinking, doing, feeling) and/or barriers in the social, institutional and/or physical environment. Occupation refers to anything that people do during the course of everyday life (self-care, productivity, and leisure).
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 | 0.167 | 0.626 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.025 |
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".