Sharpening our critical edge: Occupational therapy in the context of marginalized populations
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.
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 | 0.039 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.163 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".