Exploring occupational justice in consumer perspectives on assistive technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational justice is an emerging paradigm in the provision of occupational therapy services. Assistive technology (AT) services, a key practice domain in occupational therapy, facilitate the participation of individuals with disabilities in all major occupations. PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to explore personal meanings of occupational justice among consumers of AT and to propose strategies that integrate values of occupational justice in AT services. METHODS: A content analysis of interviews with seven consumers of AT devices was employed. Themes relevant to the four conceptual definitions of occupational injustice, namely marginalization, alienation, deprivation, and imbalance, were identified. FINDINGS: Four corresponding themes were inherent in the consumer experiences: ability to exercise choices through use of AT devices, using AT to achieve optimum occupational potential, empowerment through AT services, and personal relation to the AT device. Specific issues within these themes are classified and described according to the four conceptual definitions of occupational justice. IMPLICATIONS: The application of occupational justice is essential to promote client-centred AT services particularly in evaluation of needs, selection and acquisition of AT devices, and training and support for use of AT devices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".