The Kawa model: The power of culturally responsive occupational therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Kawa (Japanese for river) model, developed by Japanese and Canadian rehabilitation professionals, presents an important and novel alternative to contemporary 'Western' models of rehabilitation. Rather than focussing primarily on the individual client, the Kawa model focusses on 'contexts' that shape and influence the realities and challenges of peoples' dayto-day lives. The first substantial model of rehabilitation practice developed outside of the West illuminates the transactional quality of human-environment dynamics and the importance of inter-relations of self and others through the metaphor of a river's flow. The model's reflection of Eastern thought and views of nature presents a useful point of comparison to familiar rational and mechanical explanations of occupation and well-being. In this article, the rationale for an alternative model in rehabilitation is presented, followed by an explanation of the structure and concepts of the Kawa model. Implications for culturally responsive practice as well as the model's significance to the advancement of culturally safe rehabilitation worldwide are discussed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".