Cognitive orientation to daily occupation group in the adult day rehabilitation setting: A feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: in a group format in day rehabilitation has not yet been explored. Method: is the group model. To address these challenges, this feasibility study involved the development, implementation, and evaluation of a CO-OP group for adults. Four patients participated in six group sessions. Pre- and post-measures included the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS). Subjective data were collected to reflect the participant's experiences during the group. Results: 80% of participants recruited completed the group. All participants demonstrated improvement in goals addressed within the group and goals not addressed within the group on the COPM. AMPS findings were inconclusive. Subjective findings indicated participants appreciated the group learning environment, valued the CO-OP process, were motivated to participate, and would have liked more groups. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first adult CO-OP group in a clinical setting. Results support the feasibility of a CO-OP group in day rehabilitation and the need for further examination of the effectiveness of this intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".