MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405598241 · doi:10.1177/15394492241292263

Errorless Learning for Everyday Functioning in Adults With Brain Injury: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4405598241 on OpenAlexaff
Adora Chui, Jerryd Mcleod-Maenpaa, Alan Zhang, Shlomit Rotenberg, Brandon P. Vasquez

Bibliographic record

VenueOTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOCINAHLOperationalizationAcquired brain injuryPsychologyEveryday lifeOccupational therapyPsychological interventionRehabilitationMEDLINEIntervention (counseling)Activities of daily livingCLARITYClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundErrorless learning is an intervention technique used in acquired brain injury (ABI) rehabilitation. To support the use of this intervention within occupational therapy practice, it is important to know how errorless learning has been applied to (re)train daily functions.ObjectivesTo describe the empirical literature on errorless learning applied to everyday functioning in adults with ABI.MethodA scoping review was conducted with systematic searching of four databases (i.e., AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) and screening by independent reviewers.Findings41 experiments from 34 papers met eligibility criteria. Errorless learning has been heterogeneously delineated, described, and applied. Operationalization of everyday functioning has been poorly reported, and mostly applied to technology use and instrumental activities of daily living.ImplicationsGreater clarity and detail of errorless learning interventions are required, and more research is needed on its applications to everyday functioning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.390
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of ResearchSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207