[Description of the practice of occupational therapy in emergency rooms in Quebec].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Occupational therapists intervene in emergency departments, but the nature and scope of this practice is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To describe the professional practice of Quebec's occupational therapists in emergency departments. METHODS: Questionnaires covering the general context of practice, nature of interventions, assessment tools, models of practice and the satisfaction of working in emergency departments were sent by mail to the members of l'Ordre des ergothérapeutes du Québec. RESULTS: Occupational therapists have been working in emergency departments in several socio-administrative regions of Quebec and their work experience ranges from 1 to 11 years. They spend over 90% percent of their time with older adults and are members of interdisciplinary teams. They assess diverse areas of functioning and 75% of them use in-house assessment tools. The challenges encountered affect two thirds of the respondants who describe their satistaction level toward the practice as being neutral or unsatisfied. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The respondants have confirmed the emergence of occupational therapy in emergency departments and the need to develop better tools in order to address the problems met in their practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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".