The Recovery Paradigm: Should Occupational Therapists be Interested?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The mental health literature attests to a paradigm shift from an emphasis on treatment towards a focus on fostering recovery. This paradigm emphasizes many constructs familiar to occupational therapists, including quality of life, empowerment, hope, meaningful activities and work. Occupational therapists are not only familiar with these terms, but have addressed recovery-related constructs in both research and practice. METHOD AND PURPOSE: Literature on the recovery paradigm, mental health and occupational therapy was reviewed to gain an understanding of this paradigm and its relationship to occupational therapy in mental health. RESULT: Core occupational therapy beliefs and assumptions are strikingly similar to those purported to be important to fostering recovery. IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapists should consider taking a keen interest in the construct of recovery. By virtue of professional beliefs and assumptions, occupational therapists are uniquely positioned to assume a leadership role in the area of recovery-related research and practice.
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 | 0.026 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".