Reflections on Power and Justice in Enabling Occupation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This descriptive paper offers reflections on power and justice associated with occupational therapy's client-centred practice, now described as the practice of enabling occupation. Framed as a contribution to the sociology of professions, the questions addressed are: How do power and justice work in occupational therapy today? What vision of power and justice guides the profession in implementing the client-centred practice of enabling occupation? METHOD: The paper opens with an overview of the analytic framework for reflections. Two sources for reflections are highlighted: the development of the Canadian guidelines and, client/consumer and occupational therapy perspectives. To illustrate the discussion of power and justice, two contrasting diagrams are presented, one on late 20th century power relations and the other on potential power relations. RESULTS: Recommendations for research, education, practice, and guidelines development are offered prior to a conclusion that acknowledges the dissonance facing occupational therapists who struggle to focus on occupations in client-centred practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The paper offers insights and strategies for addressing power and justice as issues in implementing the client-centred practice of enabling occupation. The analysis may be used in raising awareness and guiding the strategic development of institutional change toward social inclusion and enabling occupation.
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".