Perceptions of the Canadian occupational performance measure in enhancing the client-centered approach in the rehabilitation process: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: The objective of this qualitative systematic review is to identify whether the use of the Canadian occupational performance measure (COPM) enhances the perceived experience of a client-centered approach throughout the rehabilitation process. Specifically the review questions are:How do healthcare professionals and their clients perceive the use of the COPM as an instrument to enhance the client-centered approach in the rehabilitation process?Does the use of the COPM provide a more client-centered approach and more involvement in the rehabilitation process, as experienced by the client and professionals?How do the clients and/or the professionals perceive the usability of the COPM in regard to facilitating the client-centered approach in specific settings or phases of the rehabilitation process?
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 | 0.103 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
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".