Occupational priorities and needs of blind and partially sighted people entering the labor market in Slovenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with vision impairment are a growing group of clients for occupational therapists, particularly those working in vocational rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: To examine the occupational priorities and performance issues of blind and partially sighted people entering vocational rehabilitation in Slovenia. Possible differences between priorities and issues among diagnostic groups and in relation to the rehabilitation outcome were explored. METHODS: Records of 42 clients referred to vocational rehabilitation at the University Rehabilitation Institute in Ljubljana between 2007 and 2019 were reviewed. Information on self-perceived occupational priorities and issues was obtained from the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). RESULTS: Household and other unpaid work was identified the most frequently (20%) as a priority, followed by job-seeking (19%) and community mobility (15%). Job-seeking was the top performance issue (43%), followed by community mobility (21%) and household management (19%). On the 1-10 scale, the average occupational performance and satisfaction scores were 6.7 and 6.5, respectively; no statistically significant differences in relation to the diagnosis or the rehabilitation outcome were observed. CONCLUSION: The results highlight the client-identified occupational priorities and issues beside job-seeking that need to be considered in planning occupational therapy and supporting the persons with visual impairments entering the labor market.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".