Children’s Occupations: Enhancing the Representation of the Paediatric Activity Card Sort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Paediatric Activity Card Sort (PACS) captures children’s occupational repertoires; however, it is based on a small sample. A research was conducted to increase the sample size of the PACS; examine alternative form reliability of the e-PACS; explore the relationships among sex, grade, language spoken, and school attended, and children’s occupational repertoires. Fifty five children completed the e-PACS; seven also completed the paper version. Children reported doing on average 69.4% of the activities, with personal care the highest (89.3%). No significant differences were found among variables and PACS categories. However, children in public school reported doing more hobbies (p = 0.04) than children at catholic school. Some significant differences were found between boys and girls. The e-PACS had strong alternate form reliability with the PACS. Increasing the sample size of the PACS augments its usefulness providing school-based therapists with a tool to capture children’s occupational repertoires, identify potential participation issues and provide effective, individualized interventions that support academic support and overall wellbeing.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".