MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361284235 · doi:10.1177/00084174231166260

Changes in Daily Occupations Patterns, Optimism, and Positive Affect During COVID-19 Lockdown

2023· article· en· W4361284235 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Orit Segev‐Jacubovski

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)OptimismCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)RecreationPandemicPsychologyActivities of daily livingGerontologyDemographyMedicineSocial psychologyDiseaseSociologyPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. The COVID-19 outbreak caused an initial 2-week lockdown throughout Israel. Purpose. To identify (1) changes in time-usage patterns of daily occupations during the first COVID-19 lockdown, by gender and employment status, and (2) correlations among optimism, positive affect, and daily occupations during the lockdown. Method. In a voluntary, anonymous, retrospective, online cross-sectional survey, 481 participants completed the Life Orientation Test, Positive Affect Questionnaire, and Occupational Questionnaire. Findings. During lockdown, participants spent more time in recreation, rest, and sleep regardless of their employment status, and more women than men lost their employment. Both before and during lockdown, women spent significantly higher percentage of time performing everyday tasks but reported less rest and sleep than men. Recreation was associated with positive affect. Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic created a temporary occupational disruption. Although people devoted their time differently, the lockdown forced people to find ways to continue engaging in their 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207