Scoping Review of Self-Regulation: What Are Occupational Therapists Talking About?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the term self-regulation is appearing more frequently in the occupational therapy literature, the extent to which it is consistently conceptualized is not clear. The aim of this scoping review was to examine how the term self-regulation is used by occupational therapists in research and practice literature. A total of 58 publications that included occupational therapy and self-regulation in the title, key words, or abstract were identified. Self-regulation was not explicitly defined by more than half of the authors. Four theoretical orientations seem to guide conceptualization: synactive development, sensory integration, cognitive-behavioral theory, and self-regulation theory. Conceptualization differed according to the population, levels of strategy use, source of strategy implementation, and desired outcomes. A lack of definitional clarity and conceptual consistency of the term self-regulation was noted. Use of an explicit definition in relation to an identified theoretical framework is recommended to promote intra- and interprofessional communication, education, and research.
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 | 0.058 | 0.283 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".