Using Theory to Underpin an Integrated Occupational Therapy Service through the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this action research study was to embed the theoretical tenets of the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and its structures in a way that was appropriate to, and would be used by, all staff within an integrated health and social care setting. The action research involved 10 phases of reflection and action, with data analysis occurring between the cycles. The findings showed the importance of taking time to embed theory before implementing model structures in order to prevent those structures, and particularly the paperwork, becoming superficial. In addition, the importance of using theoretical structures (models) flexibly and adapting them to particular services was identified. A more generally applicable finding was that occupational therapists can and should demonstrate their theory through their practice and that this can be done by using a model to illustrate their clinical and, more specifically, their conditional clinical reasoning (Mattingly and Fleming 1994). In addition, the demonstration of clinical reasoning proved vital in making the client-centred and occupational beliefs of the model overt. It was concluded that implementing theory and using occupation-based literature (Williams and Bannigan 2008) in this way can take a long time but is worthwhile because it provides a sound and strong base for the profession's identity.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".