Disability Management of Orthopaedic Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the pilot project was to provide all those involved employees, employers, occupational physicians, family doctors, specialists, health insurance and pension-fund insurers with a network of medical, psychological, social and occupational professionals to survey performance-challenged employees and to make recommendations for a professional disability management program. The disability management model developed in the 1990s in Canada and Australia after the establishment of the National Institutes of Disability Management and Research (NIDMAR), is finding growing acceptance worldwide. An essential element was a multidisciplinary assessment of the illness/injury/disability using specialist orthopaedics, internal medicine, occupational and social medicine and sports medicine, with an objective demonstration of reduced capacity and function according to the bio-psychosocial criteria of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The FCE test was accompanied by a self-assessment of physical ability, using the spinal function sort-performance assessment and capacity testing (PACT) developed by the Swiss Working Group for Rehabilitation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".