Ocupação e atividade: tendências e tensões conceituais na literatura anglófona da terapia ocupacional e da ciência ocupacional
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The epistemological rigor of occupational therapy has been questioned since its emergence, nearly a century ago.Occupational science, a new discipline that was created by occupational therapists in North America and evolved mainly in the Anglo-Saxon world in the past 30 years, has produced extensive discussion about the theoretical and technical underpinnings of the occupation based interventions, besides stimulating the international debate on the socio-political dimensions of the various existing models.Designed as a reflective essay, this article aims to review the concepts of occupation and activity as they are presented in contemporary Anglophone literature of occupational therapy and occupational science.Selected scientific papers and official documents are discussed.After a brief introduction that describes the theoretical framework that guides the discussion, a summary of these concepts is presented.The analysis takes into account the historical development of the two areas and also seeks to highlight opportunities for the future production of knowledge, both in occupational therapy and occupational science.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".