El modelo canadiense del proceso del desempeño ocupacional
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMENEn este segundo artículo exploraremos el Modelo Canadiense del Proceso del Desempeño Ocupacional (C.O.P.P.M.) que nos guía en el proceso de la intervención, así como el Instrumento de Valoración Canadiense del Desempeño Ocupacional (C.O.P.M.), que nos ayuda a valorar la auto-percepción del cliente sobre su desempeño ocupacional y su satisfacción. Ambos han sido desarrollados por los terapeutas canadienses para llevar a la práctica la filosofía de una terapia centrada en el cliente. Un caso práctico es desarrollado. ABSTRACTIn this second article we explore the Canadian Occupational Performance Process Model (C.O.P.P.M.) that guides us in the intervention process, and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (C.O.P.M.) which helps us to evaluate the client’s self-perception of his/her occupational performance and satisfaction. Both have been developed by Canadian occupational therapists to develop the client centred approach. A case example is developed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".