Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Client-centred practice embraces important concepts about partnership and justice that promote client participation in meaningful occupations. It is important to understand how occupational therapists can engage in and continue to develop client-centred practice within the constraints of everyday settings. PURPOSE AND METHODS: An action research study was undertaken by a group of four occupational therapists to describe insights gained, and to show the effectiveness of participation in reflective education to help foster client-centred practice. RESULTS: The six main insights generated by the group involve: congruence, understanding the potential, environmental factors, personal factors, expectations, and lifelong learning. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Although actual change to daily practice was limited, group members felt the reflective group discussion provided them with a launch pad to start a journey toward more client-centred practice. This may be the key to moving beyond simply changing the face and language of occupational therapy practice toward a deeper understanding and implementation of client-centred practice to improve client outcomes. Suggestions are provided for implementing reflection to help continue to develop your own practice.
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 | 0.074 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".