Occupational Justice: A Conceptual Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper, the first of two examining the concept of occupational justice, presents the findings of a scoping review of how occupational justice and its associated concepts (occupational deprivation, marginalization, alienation, imbalance or apartheid) have been conceptualized. Its purpose is to examine potential avenues and barriers for development and application of these concepts. The results indicate that perspectives on occupational justice emphasize individuals' unique sets of occupational needs and capacities within particular environments. Based on the idea that participation in occupation can affect health, occupational justice is underpinned by a belief in the right to engage in diverse and meaningful occupations to meet people's individual needs and develop their potential. In the literature, barriers to engagement in meaningful occupation are considered injustices. One impediment to enabling occupational justice in practice is the lack of conceptual clarity about occupational justice and its related terms. Before an occupationally just perspective can be further developed and utilised, the conceptual basis of occupational justice needs to be clarified and models for occupationally just practice need to be further developed.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".