DETALHAMENTO E REFLEXÕES SOBRE A TERAPIA OCUPACIONAL NO PROCESSO DE INCLUSÃO ESCOLAR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Studies show the effectiveness of inclusive actions in educational processes, as well as the need for specialized training of occupational therapists, enabling them for collaborative approaches and actions.Objective: To identify actions developed by occupational therapists in the process of school inclusion of children and teenagers with special educational needs, and think over the context of inclusive education from the presented perspectives.Method: A survey with 18 occupational therapists for data collection.A questionnaire related to school inclusion and professional practice was applied through an on-line platform and a social network.Data gathered were forwarded to qualitative analysis, with descriptive, exploratory analysis for objective questions, and content analysis for the descriptives.Results: The main participants' involvement in school inclusion occurred from their office practice, but 50% of them also assist in regular school.The main method of contribution occurred through assessment, planning and developing inclusion and guidance activities in schools.The participation of family and other professionals in a collaborative approach, the school and teachers lack of preparation to complete the inclusion processes were noteworthy.Conclusion: Study results reassure the importance of occupational therapist's contribution to cope with the challenges and effectiveness of school inclusion.Emphasis is given to the need for greater integration of those professionals in regular school and the importance of expanding the considerations and questions regarding the construction of a more democratic educational system.
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 | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".