Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective : The purpose of this study was to evaluate the problem of performing occupational and activities that are currently participating items, according to whether the cognitive level reported by the elderly with dementiaMethods : This study analyzed the occupational performance evaluation results of 30 elderly people with dementia who participated in practice targets during the 7th process to training elderly dementia occupational therapist. The occupational performance evaluation used the Dementia Care Assessment Package (DCAP), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Interest Checklist (IC), and Allen Cognitive Level Screening (ACLS), and the collected materials were analyzed using a frequency analysis and descriptive statistics.Results : The number of occupational performance items for dementia patients reported through the COPM was 122 in total, with 52 self-management areas (42.6%), 46 leisure areas (37.7%), and 24 productivity areas (19.7%). The elderly with dementia reported a difficulty in performing individual management in the selfmanagement area, and a difficulty in performing household management in the productivity area according to the level of their ACLS performance. As for the leisure area, as the group which is more than ACLS 5.0 reported the difficulties of static and dynamic recreation and the other two groups did the difficulties to carry out social activities, it showed the different results from those of the previous two areas. Evaluation of leisure activities could be found that there are no great changes in the leisure activities that have frequently beencarried out in the past and now in the group which is more than ACLS 5.0, while those in the cognitive and social activities were reduced in the other two groups.Conclusion : The result of the study has found that there are differences between the matter area of working performance that the aged and patients with dementia realize and the leisure activity item that they now participate in according to cognitive levels. Therefore, it is suggested that appropriate therapeutic activities and an occupational therapy arbitration should be provided according to the evaluation results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".