Arthritis-Related Occupational Therapy: Making Invisible Ruling Relations Visible Using Institutional Ethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Occupational therapists' intention of enabling women with rheumatoid arthritis to participate in everyday life is fraught with challenges in everyday practice. Method: Inspired by institutional ethnography, this paper aims to make explicit how the work of occupational therapists in an outpatient rheumatology hospital setting is governed within invisible, ruling relations. An analytical description of the first author's clinical experience was a standpoint from which to explicate how occupational therapy is coordinated to the ruling relations of the Austrian health care system. Findings: Occupational therapy practice and research are ruled within a positivist, body-focused, medical apparatus, which renders largely invisible occupational therapists' knowledge of enabling people to engage in occupations that are meaningful to them. Conclusion: Occupational therapists have professional power that can be asserted by strategically using occupational therapy specific knowledge and language in textually mediated practices, from assessments and case files to media images, to give greater visibility and influence to the profession's work of enabling occupation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".