Therapy from the University of Puget Sound.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disaster and emergency events are common occurrences and the skills necessary to respond to these incidents appear to fall within the scope of practice of occupational therapy (OT). This survey explored the format, methods and content, and frequency with which U.S. home health occupational therapists address two topics: emergency preparedness and personal evacuation planning with clients and caregivers, as well as their views of its place within the scope of OT practice. From 250 mailed recipients, 88 usable questionnaires were received for an adjusted response rate of 38.3%. Of the respondents, 85.2 % were found to address either or both of these two topics with their clients, though the majority only did so with up to a quarter of their clients. The majority of respondents, 53.4%, addressed emergency preparedness by discussing medical alert programs and 79.5 % addressed personal evacuation planning through the reduction of home hazards. Statistically significant relationships were found between the presence of other medical professionals for collaboration and both the percentage of clients who receive interventions addressing emergency preparedness (x
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.494 | 0.139 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".