Using community-based research to explore common language and shared identity in the therapeutic recreation profession in British Columbia, Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, very little peer-reviewed research on the therapeutic recreation (TR) profession has emerged from British Columbia (BC), Canada. The TR Research Network, a group of researchers and recreation therapists (RTs), adopted a community-based research approach to investigate the current state of TR in BC and to better understand common language and shared identity of diverse RTs in BC. Eighty-four (84) on-line surveys were gathered using Survey Monkey. Closed- and open-ended responses were coded numerically and thematically with the development of descriptive code books. Findings suggest that the profession in BC describes TR as “therapy,” uses clinical language to describe their work, and identifies with both humanistic and individualistic values. Research recommendations include bringing greater consistency to the language of TR, viewing research as the collaborative generation of practice-based evidence, and applying a strengths-based perspective to the ongoing professionalization of the field.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".