MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1559487031

I'm not an OT, Reflections from an Interdisciplinary Occupational Science Program through the eyes of a Geographer-Come-Occupational Scientist

2008· article· en· W1559487031 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommonKnowledge Research Repository (Pacific University Oregon) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographerOccupational scienceOccupational therapySociologyPsychologyGeographyCartographyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stemming from a paper collaboratively written by the first cohort of graduate students in Canada‚s first Occupational Science program, this presentation considers two aspects of the shared vision for occupational science we developed within the context of a doctoral course ˆ interdisciplinarity and internationalization. I entered this program with a Masters of Geography and an interest in international migration, making questions of interdisciplinarity and internationalization central to my experience within this program. Working with students from different academic and cultural backgrounds offered a unique experience to consider occupational constructs within a diverse setting. This paper contributes to the vital dialogue regarding the continued evolution of occupational science by reflecting on key issues and questions related to the notion of interdisciplinarity and our connections with other disciplines. The call to be interdisciplinary has existed since the inception of occupational science, however, defining and achieving interdisciplinarity has been a struggle and some have questioned its importance. We propose that attending to questions related to the meanings of interdisciplinarity, its benefits and drawbacks, and the ways of building rich and reciprocal ties across disciplines are essential to advancing a science that aims to achieve complex understandings of occupation. The continued international growth of the discipline furthers the need for reflexivity regarding the assumptions underlying occupational research in diverse settings. Some important questions to consider include: How can we move forward in shaping an international science that does not contribute to global inequality itself, either in terms of knowledge production or within the broader political landscape? How can we build on the insights offered through the work of scholars in occupational science while avoiding a passive and wholesale import of knowledge into diverse contexts? The consideration of ontological and epistemological assumptions, the context of research, and the power of language, with respect to the dominant use of the English language within academia, are important issues relevant to this dialogue. This paper therefore emphasizes our call for continued critical reflexivity within the discipline, which involves self-reflection on how our values and academic experiences shape and are shaped by the disciplinary structures we are situated within.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.010
Science and technology studies0.0120.010
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.242
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it