MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213179262 · doi:10.1177/00084174211056588

Occupational Therapy Theory and School-Based Filial Therapy: Intervention Rationale and Formulation

2021· article· en· W3213179262 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jane Cooper, Mong‐Lin Yu, Ted Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational therapyIntervention (counseling)PsychologyPsychotherapistMental healthClinical PracticeClinical psychologyMedicineNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Emotional-behavioural problems in children present a barrier to engagement and participation in school occupations. Applying practice theory is an essential process to explore the impact of clinical problems and to orient clinical thinking to the domain of occupation. Purpose: Occupational therapy practice theory and frameworks are applied to the formulation of School-Based Filial Therapy, a viable treatment response to emotional-behavioural problems in children. Key issues: Bowen family systems theory, the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework IV and the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement are applied to intervention formulation. Implications: School-Based Filial Therapy engages the dynamic interaction of the person, the occupations he/she engages in and the environment via therapeutic medium of play. It is consistent with the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework IV and the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement and provides new possibilities as an intervention for occupational therapists working in children's mental health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.017
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicChild Therapy and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207