Role of occupational therapy in musicians’ health: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this proposed review is twofold: first, to understand the role of occupational therapy presented in the musicians' health literature; and second, to explore the potential for this role. INTRODUCTION: The intense movement, awkward postures, concentration and emotional communication required of musicians can place them at increased risk of music-related health conditions, such as musculoskeletal disorders and performance anxiety. The development of music-related health conditions can be emotionally and financially devastating. The role of occupational therapy in musicians' health has been previously discussed; however, no rigorous reviews of the scholarly literature have been published. We will, therefore, undertake a scoping review with the following research questions: (1) what is known about the role of occupational therapy in instrumental musicians' health? and (2) what is the potential role of occupational therapy in musicians' health? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A preliminary search of Medline, CINAHL, SCOPUS and Web of Science was previously undertaken by the first author to determine the extent of the research on this topic and to confirm that no other reviews have been conducted or are in progress. Study selection and analysis will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews guidelines for conducting a scoping review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics approval is not required at our institution for a review of published literature. The results of this review will be shared through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and traditional and social media.
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 | 0.094 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.012 |
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".