Exploring the international uptake of the “F‐words in childhood disability”: A citation analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The "F-words in childhood disability" (function, family, fitness, fun, friends, and future) were introduced in a concept paper in 2012 entitled, "The F-words in childhood disability: I swear this is how we should think!". The "F-words" are grounded in, and aim to operationalize, the World Health Organization's (World Health Organization, 2001) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. A citation analysis was conducted to explore the extent of research uptake of the "F-words" concepts. METHODS: Three databases-Google Scholar, Wiley Online, and Web of Science-were searched from July 2012 to December 2018 for sources that cited the original F-words paper. Dates of publication and countries of first authors were extracted from all cited articles, and a taxonomy was developed to categorize the type of usage. RESULTS: The search yielded 157 sources from 26 countries, and the number of citations has continued to increase since the paper's publication. Sources were placed into three categories: cited/referenced (n = 109; i.e., the paper was simply cited), integrated/informed (n = 36; i.e., the F-words were stated within the text), and non-English (n = 12). Of the 36 integrated/informed sources, 34 (94.4%) applied the F-words to the ICF framework and five themes emerged with respect to the use of the F-words: (a) support of a holistic approach to childhood disability, (b) association of the F-words to physical activity and rehabilitation, (c) application and measurement of quality of life, (d) F-words research team-related papers, and (e) "other" category. CONCLUSION: This citation analysis shows that the F-words are mainly being used to operationalize the ICF, support a holistic approach to childhood disability, and inform physical activity and rehabilitation-based interventions. These perspectives will play an important role in informing the next steps with respect to moving the F-words into research and 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".