Gardening and planting as a meaningful occupation; The use of horticulture therapy in occupational therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACHELOR THESIS ABSTRACT Author: Barbora Mišoňová Supervisor: Bc. Olga Nováková, M.Sc. Title: Gardening and Planting as a Meaningful Occupation: The Use of Horticulture Therapy in Occupational Therapy. Abstract: This bachelor thesis deals with the possibilities of using the principles and methods of garden therapy in occupational therapy. It explores gardening and planting from the perspective of the occupational therapist, and relates these activities to meaningful occupation. The aim of this thesis is to learn about the garden therapy principles and to apply the knowledge gained with elements of garden therapy and plant care to an occupational therapy intervention for people with a neurological diagnosis. The theoretical part describes garden therapy and gardening from the perspective of the occupational therapist as a meaningful occupation using Czech and especially foreign resources. The practical part consists of a List of Suggestions for Therapeutic Activities, case studies of 2 patients and a review of adaptive equipments for therapy with gardening activities. The case reports were based on the patients' initial and exit examinations, supplemented by the Visual Hand Functional Assessment Score and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, a Questionnaire developed by the author, photo and video...
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".