MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Questioning: A critical skill in postmodern health‐care service delivery

2008· article· en· W1982576457 on OpenAlexaff
Cary A. Brown, Katrina Bannigan, Joanna R. Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostmodernismScrutinySocratic methodContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Health careSociologyPsychologyEngineering ethicsEpistemologyNursingMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Occupational therapists can no longer rely exclusively on biomedical frameworks to guide their practice and facilitate clinical problem-solving. A postmodernist perspective of health and well-being underlines that the illness experience is not a linear, cause-and-effect equation. Rather, life experiences are constructed through a myriad of social, cultural, physical and economic contexts that are highly unique to each individual. In other words, the assumption that 'one-size-fits-all' is as flawed in health care as it is in clothing design. This paper contributes to the growing discussion of health care within the postmodern context of the twenty-first century through first presenting a brief discussion of emerging postmodern thinking and application within the profession, followed by a rationale for the need to scrutinise prevalent modernist assumptions that guide decision-making. Finally, the paper introduces the method of Socratic questioning as a critical tool in successfully carrying out this scrutiny in an empowering and respectful manner for all stakeholders.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.257
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Occupational Therapy JournalSame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207