Integrated Occupational Therapy Camp for Children with Regulation/Sensory Processing Differences: Preliminary Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Integration of occupational therapy into a camp environment may support participation for children with neurodevelopmental differences, but evidence is limited. Purpose. This study examines the effects of participation of children with regulation/sensory processing differences at one such integrated camp on parent-established functional goals. Method. We used a pre-test/post-test repeated measures cohort design. Individualized goals were established with parents three months before camp using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) (n = 82, child ages 4–13). Parents re-rated goals immediately before, one month after, and three months after camp. Findings. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed improvement in occupational performance over the week of camp significantly exceeded change within the three months prior. Improvements remained stable three months post-camp. Implications. Integrating occupational therapy within a camp setting is beneficial for children with neurodevelopmental differences. The COPM can be integrated into a camp setting to document meaningful change in individualized parent-established goals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".