Valeurs liées à la profession d’ergothérapeute : les répertorier pour les définir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Inaccuracies and conceptual confusion characterize the literature on the values associated with occupational therapy. PURPOSE.: The purpose of this study was to identify values related to occupational therapy, propose definitions for those values, and validate the content of the definitions. METHOD.: A review of the literature ( n = 52) and consultation of occupational therapists ( n = 26) were used to document and define a series of values. The resulting list of values was tested for functionality by occupational therapists ( n = 5) and presented to occupational therapists with ethics expertise ( n = 6) to assess content validity of the value definitions. FINDINGS.: The proposed list presents 33 values with their definitions that the experts considered to be clear and representative of the realities they describe. The results show that the list is considered exhaustive. IMPLICATIONS.: This study identified values that are ideals that can guide occupational therapy practice and support the claims and cultural and ethical competencies of occupational therapists.
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 | 0.025 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".