Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational therapy has emphasized the relationship between the therapist and the client. The occupational therapy guidelines for client-centered practice produced in the 1980s by the Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare and the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (Task Force on Guidelines for the Practice of Occupational Therapy, 1983) has had variable use over the years. While occupational therapists believe in the principles of client-centered care, the philosophical concepts have been difficult to fully implement and also seem narrow in light of all the external forces and challenges posed by today's clients and their rights, and the ethics of medicine. Other concepts need to be in place to facilitate the true constructs of client-centered care. A historical overview of the medical perspective and the occupational therapy perspectives on client-centered and family-centered care are reviewed. Lessons learned from the various iterations of client-centered and family-centered care are posed for consideration of a newer more inclusive relationship-centered concept for occupational therapy.
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 | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".