MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137833955

지체 장애인을 위한 주거환경개선 : 팀-접근식

2004· article· ko· W3137833955 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
이성아

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Korean Society of Occupational Therapy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistOccupational therapyIntervention (counseling)MedicineCerebral palsyPhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective : The aim of this study is to check for physical disabled people the result of occupational therapeutic intervention provided by a housing improvement plan of a team, which is composed of experts from both fields of occupational therapy and interior design.Methods : The subjects of this study are a 46 year old man with Buerger’s disease and a 37 year old woman with cerebral palsy. By providing each of home checklist subjects suggested improvement plan taking into consideration characteristics and prognoses of diseases with an environment, and evaluates each patient’s A.D.L by M.B.I. and Occupational performance by Canadian Occupational Performance Measurement.Results : After housing improvement, the subjects showed that ADL was improvement but not meaningful statistics, occupational performance and satisfaction was meaningful clinical changes.Conclusion : This study of team-approach housing improvement, this dissertation shows the fact that a professional management provided by each expert for physical disabled people in community makes possible their comfortable daily lives overcoming disabilities, prevention of diseases, and improvement of life quality. However, a more objective evaluation is needed because housing improvement is an activity of intervention designed according to each subject’s characteristics and situation.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Korean Society of Occupational TherapySame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207