Trials and tribulations of therapeutic recreation provision in the Australian mental health setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While therapeutic recreation (TR) has been firmly embraced in Canada and the United States as a purposeful form of intervention to assist individuals with disabilities or illness to live a more healthy and satisfying life, in Australia the concept (and indeed the practice) is yet to be fully accepted in the mental healthcare setting. While there are a number of reasons for this, the historical development of recreation therapy and leisure services and even the terminology used in this country (i.e., diversional therapy in preference to therapeutic recreation) has led to a fractured notion of what the term means today and even what that service entails in many parts of Australia. Importantly, while significant national reform of the mental health system has led to an increased demand for more professional TR based services, many therapeutic recreation professionals working in the field are nevertheless poorly regarded by many of their healthcare professional and semi-professional peers. This paper outlines some of the challenges currently being faced by TR professionals working in the Australian mental health system and identifies some key practices that many of these same individuals have yet to adopt in their everyday work practices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".