Panel Presentation - Conceptualizing Occupational Justice Globally: Present Understandings and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both occupational science (OS) and occupational therapy (OT) share core beliefs related to human dignity, rights, and social inclusion (Frank, 2012; Whiteford & Townsend, 2011). Of concern to both, then, is the promotion of occupational justice. This international panel will review how occupational justice has been conceptualized, articulated, and operationalized in OS and OT. Then empirical data will be used to show how occupational injustices can arise inadvertently through the intersection of sociopolitical structures and discourses and from policy-driven processes. These ‘on the ground’ situations will be used to ‘think with,’ highlighting current challenges to operationalizing occupational justice. Discussion will focus on future directions for promoting occupational justice in practice.\nFirst, a meta-synthesis of the results of a scoping review (Durocher, 2013) and a systematic mapping review of justice articulations in OS and OT literature will show the diverse ways that justice has been conceptualized.\nNext, a Canadian study of discharge planning with older adults will show how the intersection of social and political forces can result in occupational injustice. Discharge planning from inpatient care involves the decision of where individuals will live upon discharge, which can have significant implications determining available opportunities and how and by whom needs will be met. In one older adult inpatient rehabilitation setting, co-constituting underlying beliefs about aging as decline and the primacy of healthcare professionals’ knowledge intersected with conventions in discharge planning processes and practices to maximize safety resulting in the marginalization of older adults in their own discharge decisions as they were disallowed from making decisions deemed “risky” by others.\nNext, a study on the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) will reveal how occupational possibilities were promoted and situated within the institutional ethos. The NDIS, labelled the biggest social policy reform since the introduction of Medicare in the 1970s, aimed to provide support and foster capability enablement for people living with severe and profound disability through opportunities for social inclusion and individualised funding. Analysis of the NDIS from a critical occupational science perspective reveals how the NDIS facilitates occupational justice in practice and highlights areas of future development.\nDiscussion will focus on how to move concepts of occupational justice into the practice realm, focusing on the intersection of practice, policy and research championed within occupation-based disciplines.\nKey words: Occupational justice; theory; practice; policy
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 | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.006 |
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".