Occupational Well-Being: Rethinking Occupational Therapy Outcomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcomes in occupational therapy focus largely on increasing and enhancing the quality of clients' occupational performance, and thus, the importance of clients'subjective experiences of their occupations are often overshadowed. PURPOSE: In this paper, the concept of occupational well-being is introduced. Our intent is to extend the focus beyond occupational performance and draw attention to individuals' subjective occupational experiences. KEY ISSUES: We contend that occupational well-being is enhanced when individuals' occupational needs, including their needs for accomplishment, affirmation, agency, coherence, companionship, pleasure, and renewal are consistently met. IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapists can play a vital role in enabling clients to compose or re-orchestrate their occupational lives so they are able to meet their occupational needs more consistently. This role may be fulfilled by intervening directly with clients or by indirectly influencing clients' occupational lives or society at large to effect changes at an environmental or organizational level.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it