MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009349928 · doi:10.1177/0308022620902681

The impact of person–environment–occupation transactions on joint attention in children with autism spectrum disorder: A scoping review

2020· review· en· W3009349928 on OpenAlexaff
David Ambrose, Diane MacKenzie, Parisa Ghanouni

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorderJoint attentionPerspective (graphical)PsychologyAutismAffect (linguistics)Joint (building)Applied behavior analysisOccupational therapyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyApplied psychologyPsychiatryComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Individuals with autism spectrum disorder demonstrate difficulty with joint attention, affecting social and occupational performance. Studies of joint attention in children with autism spectrum disorder employ a variety of instrumentation, environments and occupations. From the occupational therapy perspective, current literature lacks a rigorous analysis of the transactions of person, environment and occupation embedded within the procedures of these studies. The goal of this scoping review was to investigate how these components transact to affect occupational performance. Method Using the Person–Environment–Occupation model as an evaluative lens, a scoping review was completed to summarize person, environment and occupation transactions in studies examining joint attention in children aged 6–12 years with autism spectrum disorder. Results Six studies were included. Findings indicated that simplified social environments and demonstrations of joint attention promoted higher joint attention performance in children with autism spectrum disorder, at the cost of ecological validity. Maintaining ecological validity in complex social environments resulted in lower joint attention performance. Conclusion The Person–Environment–Occupation model can be used to develop an occupational therapy perspective on literature from outside the discipline. There is a relationship between the person, environment, occupation transactions and joint attention in children with autism spectrum disorder.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207