Enabling international communication among Brazilian occupational therapists: seeking consensus on occupational terminology
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
The purpose of this study was to examine how key occupational therapy terminologies are used by Brazilian occupational therapists. A nominal group approach combined with a Delphi technique involving 31 Brazilian occupational therapists was applied. A sociolinguistic approach was adopted since it broadens our understanding of the social and cultural determinants of terminology consolidation. Brazilian occupational therapists were found to adopt the term activity more often than human action or doing. Even less often were praxis and occupation applied. No consensus was reached regarding which of the terms is most preferred. While Brazilian occupational therapists have been developing their profession from international standards, it is still embedded in local demands and policies. Additionally, the political context must be considered when building an international dialogue between members of a professional body. Such a dialogue could engage professionals from different countries in meaningful exchanges about their practices. These exchanges may lead to the development of solid professional communities that can contribute meaningfully to social change.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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 it