Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Family caregivers are ever-present and crucial collaborators in the work of occupational therapists but are rarely the focus of their efforts. Purpose. This lecture will discuss the greater inclusion of family caregivers in occupational therapy and the exciting possibilities that emerge from this change. Key issues. Family caregivers are a unique client population. This position statement is supported by recent research on occupational therapists’ values and shifts towards an occupational participation approach in the profession. Working with this client population requires a nuanced understanding of their experience. Caregiving can be burdensome, but it can also create positive effects many of which can be identified and understood through a relational lens. Implications. Through a three-fold approach, occupational therapists can work with caregivers to locate and mitigate negative caregiving effects, discover, and build on positive effects, and further develop positive outcomes by encouraging and balancing caregiving and non-caregiving occupations.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".