Reflections on… a Disability Methodology for the Client-Centred Practice of Occupational Therapy Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists' stated commitments to client-centred practice and to enabling participation in the occupations of daily life are not universally reflected in either the practice or the occupation of occupational therapy research. Nor have the profession's researchers generally engaged with those critiques of their endeavours that have been articulated by disability theorists. PURPOSE: Because no guidelines exist for the client-centred practice of occupational therapy research this paper draws from the work of disability theorists to sketch a disability methodology: a specific philosophical, political and ethical approach to developing knowledge that is fundamentally concerned with realigning power within the research relationship and throughout the research process. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The proposed disability methodology attempts to align the practice of occupational therapy research with the client-centred philosophy underpinning occupational therapy practice and aspires to enable clients' meaningful participation in the occupation of research.
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 | 0.303 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.131 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".