Sharpening our critical edge: Occupational therapy in the context of marginalized populations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An emerging and important area of occupational therapy practice involves engaging with various individuals and population groups who live in marginalizing conditions that result in health inequities. PURPOSE: This paper calls for more critical and intersectional analyses of occupational therapy in the context of marginalized populations. KEY ISSUES: Intersectionality has the potential to reveal important and complex interactions among social systems that create and sustain marginalization and to inform more nuanced, contextualized, and socially responsive forms of occupational therapy. Central to this process is the co-construction of knowledge with people who experience marginalization. Engaging in this work requires occupational therapists to undertake ongoing critical reflexivity to attend to our sociohistorical positioning of power and privilege in relation to marginalized populations. IMPLICATION: Complicating our discourse on marginalized populations is imperative to enacting our critical potential in working toward social justice and health equity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it