Occupational Therapy in the Community: What, Why, and How
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractObjective. This study examined the physical, emotional, social, and economic functions of service dogs, the training methods for service dog/owner teams, and problems encountered with service dogs in relationship to occupational therapy literature and domain of concern.Method. A 31-question survey was developed based on the literature and Uniform Terminology (AOTA, 1994) and was completed by 202 service dog owners from 40 states and Canada.Results. Owners reported that service dogs assisted them in 28 functional tasks, helped them to feel safe, increased their social interaction, and reduced physical assistance by others. Problems with service dogs included difficulty with dog maintenance and public awareness of their role as a worker or assistant to the owner. Over 80% of respondents desired additional training in alternative ways to perform daily living tasks.Conclusion. The use of service dogs is consistent with the occupational therapy domain of concern and practice. Occupational therapists might collaborate with service dog trainers and potential owners in referral, assessment, training, and follow-up services.KEYWORDS: Rehabilitationphysical disabilityassistive technology
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".