Expanding the Boundaries of Occupational Therapy Practice through Student Fieldwork Experiences: Description of a Provincially-Funded Community Development Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The numbers of occupational therapists in community practice are not yet large enough to provide fieldwork placements to accommodate all students. This article describes a project designed to educate community agencies that do not employ occupational therapists, about our service while at the same time securing new fieldwork placements. We used on-site different discipline and offsite same discipline supervision to provide students to selected agencies without cost. Funding for one year from the Ontario Ministry of Health to the Ontario University Programs in Rehabilitation Science enabled us to initiate and evaluate the project. Students in the project developed their ability to work independently and to see their potential role in health promotion and prevention. Despite the lack of ongoing government funding, four years later, community sites are not only being maintained, but the number of sites has increased from 28 to 39, providing a total of 75 student placements. By educating a growing number of community agencies about the work of occupational therapists, the project has also expanded the boundaries of 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".