Sacred Texts: A Sceptical Exploration of the Assumptions Underpinning Theories of Occupation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists share some basic assumptions about occupation that are rarely challenged and are held to be true. These assumptions underpin our theories of human occupation. PURPOSE: To probe some of the core assumptions that inform current occupational therapy theory and to determine whether these are culturally specific or have supporting evidence. KEY ISSUES: Evidence suggests that some of occupational therapy's entrenched assumptions reflect specific rather than universal perspectives; that many meaningful occupations cannot be categorized as self-care, productivity or leisure; that the concept of leisure is an ableist, class-bound, and culturally specific concept; that current models of occupation overlook activities motivated by connections to others; that productivity is not universally perceived to be central to life's meaning nor universally experienced as a positive contributor to health; and that independence is not universally prized. IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapy's theories of occupation would benefit from a sound evidence base derived from diverse cultural perspectives.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.120 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".