Bibliographic record
Abstract
recently watched a recruitment ad for the armed forces that used the slogan: Be All That You Can Be! I was reminded of the similar objective of effective occupational therapy which is to enable persons to get on with living their independent lives by helping them become all that they want to be. Unlike the army, however, an occupational therapist cannot order a client to do exactly what the therapist believes would be in the person’s own best interests. Canadian occupational therapists are committed to a person-centred approach through their interventions, but may in the end become frustrated by clients who do not immediately accept and act upon good professional advice. All rehabilitation professionals need to understand that they have an obligation to provide sound advice and current information to their clients about the options that are available to them, but that the final decisions still rest with the individual who will live with the consequences of those decisions. Speaking as both a person with a disability and a consumer advocate, I can certainly appreciate the value of working in partnership with my rehabilitation professionals. They can offer me tremendous insight based on their training and experience in dealing with similar situations. I am, however, in the best position to know what is important to me and what I am prepared to do in order to achieve my personal goals. I need to maintain control over my life, as is the general wish of most other citizens. Clients should not be expected to blindly accept all the external choices presented to them just because the suggestions come from a well-intentioned professional. Consumers in other areas feel the same way about their relationships with the rehabilitation professionals involved in their lives.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.017 |
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".