Development of the Saskatchewan Psychiatric Occupational Therapy Driving Screen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Screening driving ability is challenging in psychiatry due to the fluctuating nature of psychiatric diagnoses, psychosocial factors, and the impact of medications. An examination of best practice and a literature review yielded few results, highlighting the need for the development of a driving screening framework. The goal was to develop a clinical reasoning guide, agreed upon by psychiatric occupational therapists, to improve systematic driving screening for this population. Method A series of surveys distributed to occupational therapists examined the key components to consider, utilizing a modified Delphi technique. Data from 94 completed questionnaires over three rounds were filtered, analyzed, summarized, and redistributed. Survey distribution and guideline amendment continued until consensus was achieved. Findings The Saskatchewan Psychiatric Occupational Therapy Driving Screen (SPOT-DS) has been developed as the first comprehensive clinical reasoning guide for screening drivers with psychiatric conditions. Conclusion The SPOT-DS can assist in protecting clients’ driving privileges, while ensuring public safety on the roads by providing a systematic approach to screening drivers. Further testing on its validity is warranted.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".