El Modelo Canadiense de Terapia Ocupacional: a propósito de tres casos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the department of Physical Rehabilitation in the Xeral Calde Hospital of Lugo are two occupational therapists and are attended adults patients with pathologies of upper members and children in early attention.Children have two sessions every week and adults are attended every day from Monday to Friday, and at least during twenty sessions. The doctor of physical medicine derives every patient to the department. The aim of this article is make a revision of the Canadian model (Simó S. y Urbanowski, 2006) and carry it out to the clinic practice in a framework of traditional rehabilitation, the patient is derived from primary attention by the family doctor or specialized attention, this, accept the derivation and accept the treatment without knowing the aim of the process of rehabilitation. We follow a methodology based on reading and analysing the scientific articles (Canadian journal of occupational therapy 2001-2004), where the Canadian model is applied. Furthermore we follow a model of practice in the department of rehabilitation with patients with analogous demands. Following theses guidelines, we apply the model in three clinic cases, evaluation under Canadian Model (Urbanowski R., 2006), aims negotiation, program development, results valoration (Law M., 1998), and conclusions.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".