Vision and hearing impairment and occupational therapy education: Needs and current practice
Classification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction It is unclear what sensory impairment screening content should be included in the core-educational process for occupational therapists. The purpose of this study was to identify what content is currently being taught with regard to screening for vision and hearing loss, and to gather recommendations from specialists in this field of practice in order to formulate recommendations to improve professional entry-level occupational therapy curriculum content. Method Using a mixed-methods design, the two-phase study investigated the perceptions of five curriculum chairs, as well as 10 occupational therapists specializing in sensory rehabilitation. Results Curriculum chairs reported minimal course content with regard to training in the sensory domain, a dearth that was corroborated by specialists working with individuals affected by sensory loss. While vision-related topics were well covered, hearing-related information was sparser, and dual sensory impairment was mostly absent. Conclusion Occupational therapists are well positioned to play an essential role with the population living with sensory loss. However, most clinicians are not adequately prepared to practice with this clientele, and most expertise is gained after graduation. There is a need for stakeholders to discuss the minimal acceptable curriculum content needed to ensure that graduates are prepared to work in this growing area
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it