Évaluation des troubles de l’oralité alimentaire chez l’enfant de 4 à 18 ans : création d’un outil ergothérapique centré sur l’occupation repas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le trouble de l’oralite alimentaire designe toutes les difficultes qui empechent un enfant de s’alimenter de maniere satisfaisante. Il touche 25 % de la population pediatrique generale et jusqu’a 80 % des enfants ayant des troubles neuro-developpementaux. Les nombreux facteurs qui influent sur la prise de repas de l’enfant sont envisages dans ce travail au travers du Modele canadien du rendement et de l’engagement occupationnel (MCREO). Les outils a disposition des ergotherapeutes pour evaluer les enjeux complexes lies a l’alimentation ont ete etudies pour determiner s’ils couvraient toutes les spheres d’interet de l’ergotherapeute selon le MCREO. Aucun outil repertorie ne permettait de repondre aux besoins des ergotherapeutes en matiere d’evaluation. Un questionnaire visant a determiner les caracteristiques ideales d’un outil d’evaluation des TOA en ergotherapie a ete soumis a 24 ergotherapeutes specialises dans ce domaine. Une premiere version d’outil a ensuite ete creee puis discutee en entretien avec deux ergotherapeutes specialisees en alimentation. Les implications pour la recherche et la pratique ergotherapiques sont discutees et un outil permettant de mesurer la performance occupationnelle de l’enfant au repas est propose.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".