El corazón rojo de Almadén: los yacimientos de mercurio de Almadén -Ciudad Real- son hoy un parque cultural que nos transporta, a través de pozos, hornos y galetías, a una época en la que sus habitantes se jugaban la vidad en la mina. Un lugar de La Mancha ...
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For individuals with brain injury, active participation in goal setting is associated with better rehabilitation outcomes. However, clinicians report difficulty engaging these clients in goal setting due to perceived or real deficits (e.g., lack of awareness). We conducted a study using grounded theory methods to understand how clinicians from occupational therapy facilitate client engagement and manage challenges inherent in goal setting with this population. Through constant comparative analysis, a goal-setting continuum emerged. At one end of the continuum, therapists embrace client-determined goals and enable clients to decide their own goals. At the other, therapists accept preset organization-determined goals (e.g., "the goal is discharge") and pay little attention to client input. Although all participants aspired to embrace client-determined goal setting, most felt powerless to do so within perceived organizational constraints. Views of advocacy and empowerment help to explain our findings and inform more inclusive practice.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".