MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983597364 · doi:10.1080/0164212x.2019.1684860

Concept Analysis of Human Functioning and Potential Applications to Mental Health Evaluation

2019· article· en· W2983597364 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Desrosiers, Nadine Larivière, Richard Boyer

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational Therapy in Mental Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationMental healthPsychologyApplied psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the medical and mental health literature, the concept of functioning is commonly used and refers to different terms and definitions. The purpose of this study was to clarify the term “functioning” and examine instruments that evaluate human functioning. The Walker and Avant method was used to conduct a concept analysis. This analysis identified four main attributes that allow human functioning to be operationalized and support development of a measure of functioning in mental health. The manner in which occupational therapists and occupational scientists conceptualize human functioning, enriches the understanding of this concept in mental health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational Therapy in Mental HealthSame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207