Canadian Occupational Therapists' Contributions to Prisoners of War in World War II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A small number of Canadian occupational therapists provided materials to prisoners of war who were experiencing occupational deprivation in German camps during World War II. Although the occupational therapy contribution was relatively minor relative to the overall efforts of assistance to prisoners of war, it represented dedication, commitment and further sacrifice at a time when occupational therapists faced difficult choices. METHOD: An historical research method approach was employed to gather information from primary sources found in the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapy archives. Secondary sources were also consulted to provide additional background information. This paper outlines the need and context for the response, method of organization, materials sent, challenges experienced, and impact that this effort had on both POWs and the occupational therapists themselves. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This account may inform and inspire current day occupational therapists who are considering the implications of occupational deprivation within frameworks of social and occupational justice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".