Self-Care, Productivity, and Leisure, or Dimensions of Occupational Experience? Rethinking Occupational “Categories”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Critics contend that occupational therapy's theories of occupation are culturally specific, class-bound, and ableist, and that the division of all occupations into three simplistic categories of self-care, productivity, and leisure is arbitrary, lacks supportive evidence, and promotes a doctrine of individualism. PURPOSE: To add to the work of critics who advocate a fundamental rethinking of occupational therapy's conceptualizations of occupation in terms of subjective qualities of experience that address intrinsic needs. KEY ISSUES: This paper suggests that if categories of occupation were informed by the ways in which people experience their occupations, these might be labelled as restorative, as ways to connect and contribute, as engagement in doing, and as ways to connect the past and present to a hopeful future. IMPLICATIONS: If occupational therapists enabled diverse clients'perspectives to inform occupational categories, perhaps relationships between occupations and well-being might more easily be identified in theory and addressed in 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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".