Scientific productions on the F-Words in the field of child rehabilitation: an integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The F-Words have brought a new approach to the concepts of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), indicating important aspects in the influence of the participation of children with disabilities. Objective The main objective of the words (Fitness, Fun, Friends, Family, Function, Future) is to provide a social view as opposed to the biomedical model, aiming at the participation of children with disabilities as the main form of quality of life and health. As this is a relatively new approach, this study aimed to map the scientific production of F-Words in the field of child and adolescent rehabilitation. Method To this end, an integrative literature review was carried out. Data were collected by two independent researchers through a search at the Periódicos Capes and Google Scholar platforms using the descriptor F-Words for English, Minhas Palavras Favoritas (Portuguese), and Mis Palabras Favoritas (Spanish). The selected articles (N=11) were those that contained the term in the title, keywords, or abstract and that were available in full. Results The results shown in this study provided an understanding of the scientific production of the F-Words theme at the national and international level and a description of the typology of prevalently theoretical studies and validation studies. Scientific publications on the theme were concentrated in Canada. It was observed that the term F-Words, rather than its translation into Brazilian Portuguese (Minhas Palavras favoritas), is used to refer to the concept in question. Conclusion In conclusion, the concept is still new and its level of dissemination has increased gradually over the years, which may be the reason for the low scientific production in countries other than those of its creators.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".