Analysis of Community Participation Levels of Individuals Who Are Physically Disabled and Working in Industrial Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine quality of life, leisure time satisfaction, activity performance, and community participation and analyze the relationship between these determinants and community participation in both physically disabled individuals working in industrial environments and nonworking individuals who are physically disabled. Sociodemographic data was registered into a sociodemographic form. World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 was used to assess community participation. Activity performance was evaluated with Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Leisure Satisfaction Scale was used to determine leisure time satisfaction. Short Form-36 was used for evaluating quality of life. When the participants were compared in terms of working status, a significant difference according to their WHO-DAS-II total scores were found (p < 0.05). When all participants were compared in terms of activity performance, lesisure time satisfaction, quality of life a significant differences according to their WHO-DAS-II total scores were found (p>0.05). This study shows that community participation was affected by working status, disability level, activity performance, leisure time satisfaction and quality of life. In this regard, occupational therapy and physiotherapy approaches were found necessary for developing community participation. We conclude that this study's results can be used as a guide for community participation in disabled people in community based rehabilitation politics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".