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
Objective : This study was designed to determine the effects of sensory integration group therapy with regard to the sensory processing, peer interactions, and task performance, and whether they continue.Methods : Twelve children aged 7 to 13 years enrolled in this study for 60 minutes per session, three times a week for 8 weeks. Sensory integration group therapy consisted of a total of 24 activities that included sensory processing, play skills, and interaction with peers. Short Sensory Profile was used to select subjects. In order to measure the outcome, we used the Short Sensory Profile, Penn Interactive Peer Play Scale and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure at pre, post, and follow-up evaluations. The results were analyzed by means of repeated measures analysis, and the pre-test, post-test, and follow-up tests were compared using the Wilcoxon matched-pair signed rank test.Results : After sensory integration group therapy, sensory processing, peer interaction, and task performance significantly improved(p<.05). In addition, we confirmed that the effects of treatment were maintained in the 4 weeks follow-up test.Conclusion : Sensory integration group therapy is an effective way of mediating effects not only by improving sensory processing skills, but also by providing imitation and training in groups for children in need of peer interaction and linking them to daily life.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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