Caregivers’ Profiles Based on the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for the Adoption of Assistive Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COPM (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure) is a tool that is based on the identification of self-perceived performance and satisfaction problems in the performance of occupations, allowing the creation of a hierarchy in the order of the interventions to be carried out, and speeding up the identification of the necessary AT (Assistive Technologies). Given the importance of the caregiver's perception about their own performance in the design of AT, this research examines the caregiver's profile through the COPM. A sample of 40 caregivers volunteered to participate in the study. A cluster analysis was carried out on the COPM scores. Two caregiver profiles were found in relation to the COPM measure, one with low scores on performance and satisfaction and another with high scores on both of these two variables. The main predictor was found to be the self-perception of performance. The structure was replicated through a hierarchical cluster analysis, where the role of caregivers was of interest. These results are relevant on both a theoretical and practical level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".