MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954041295 · doi:10.1080/17483107.2019.1632943

To tilt or not to tilt; the decision-making process

2019· article· en· W2954041295 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Titus, Janice Miller-Polgar

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareParkwood InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTilt (camera)Context (archaeology)Power (physics)Point (geometry)PsychologyGrounded theorySocial psychologyComputer scienceSociologyEngineeringQualitative researchMathematicsGeographyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study's aim was to explore the complexities of how power tilt use is integrated within the context of daily life. Other studies have used mobility-type metrics of frequency, duration, and amplitude as measures of power tilt use in the context of daily life but results lack depth in explaining the complex interplay of participating in daily activities and power tilt use. METHODS: This grounded theory study explored how power tilt was used in daily life from the perspectives of people experienced with using power tilt and therapists experienced with prescribing power tilt. Data collected from 22 in-depth interviews and five 3-day journals were analysed using a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: The resultant substantive theory offers an avenue for examining the complex, iterative relationships of person, environment, technology and occupation that comprise daily life, influencing how power tilt is used at any point during the course of the day. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge generated from this research contributes to the advancement of understanding of how the decision to use tilt is integrated in daily life occupations. The theory can inform clinical practice related to individualizing power tilt use within the context of the person's own reality of daily life. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION The decision to use tilt or not use tilt at any point during the day, is made contingent on the iterative transaction between environmental, functional and personal contexts at that point in time. Feedback from each experience where power tilt was used generates learning and knowledge about the context of power tilt use, informing subsequent occurrences where tilt use may be an option. The substantive theory generated in this study can provide an avenue to explore how and why context influences the decision-making process to foster an in-depth understanding of why tilt is chosen or not chosen to affect problems/issues/situations occurring in day-to-day 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.018
Scholarly communication0.0140.007
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.456 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive TechnologySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207