Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper synthesizes research and theory on aspects of activities producing variations in perceived temporality and subjective experience. SYNTHESIS: A proposed continuum of variations of six temporal experience are described: 1) protracted duration--elapsed time feels greater than actual elapsed clock time; 2) synchronicity--match of clock and perceived time; 3) compression--perceived time feels shorter than clock time; 4) flow--a sense of timelessness; 5) interstitial--perceived stoppage of clock time; and 6) temporal rupture--disruption of synchronicity of clock time. Five contextually situated steps that generate each of these temporal variations explain how these variations unfold in the experience of occupation. This synthesis is the basis for the Dynamic Occupation in Time (DOiT) Model which also incorporates the key occupational therapy concepts of human agency, personal engagement, context, and culture. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Investigating how occupations produce various temporalities and experiences will allow occupational scientists to investigate the underlying complexities of occupation-based practice. Also, by understanding more about the dynamic nature of occupations and appreciating the fluid quality of persons within their occupational context, occupational therapists can improve their design of occupation-based interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".