Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists recognizes the impact of a person’s environment - the physical, social, and attitudinal environments in which people live and conduct their lives (WHO 2001:8,10) on participation in valued activities, and that occupational therapists have a distinct role in seniors’ care and facilitating aging in place in a setting of their choice. CAOT acknowledges the diversity amongst seniors and considers the full spectrum of client needs and capabilities, thus negating a “one size fits all” approach to aging in place. A client-centred approach is taken whereby clients are understood as individuals as well as being part of families, organizations, community groups and other groups, and as such recognizes the importance of both the home and community aspects of aging in place. Occupational justice underpins this position statement, where all people have the opportunities, resources, and rights to engage in meaningful occupations to meet both intrinsic needs and societal expectations (Townsend & Wilcox, 2004; Wilcox & Townsend, 2000).The World Health Organization’s Age-Friendly Communities model is used to guide this holistic approach to aging in place and this Position Statement provides guidance for occupational therapists looking to expand their practice in the areas identified in the framework.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.031 |
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".