Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to determine the perception and implementation status of Occupation-Based Practice (OBP) for occupational therapists working in the Busan, Ulsan, and Gyeongnam areas. Method: Occupational therapists in the Busan, Ulsan, and Gyeongnam areas responded to a questionnaire in which a total of 194 questionnaires were analyzed. Result: The definition of OBP from the occupational therapists point of view included the client’s self-awareness of occupation and participation during intervention, the occupation and activities chosen by the clients themselves, and the use of occupation as an evaluation and intervention method. The perception of OBP showed a mean value of 5.21, whereas occupational understanding and knowledge resulted in a mean score of 4.98. The frequency of application of OBP showed a mean value of 2.68 out of 10 each day. Assessment tools often used to implement OBP include interviews, clinical observations, and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Conclusion: Occupational therapists in the Busan, Ulsan and Gyeongnam areas showed a moderate level of awareness of OBP, and a low level of implementation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".