Approaches to culture and diversity: A critical synthesis of occupational therapy literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2007 position statement on diversity for the Canadian occupational therapy profession argued discussion was needed to determine the implications of approaches to working with cultural differences and other forms of diversity. In 2014, a new position statement on diversity was published, emphasizing the importance of social power relations and power relations between client and therapist, and supporting two particular approaches: cultural safety and cultural humility with critical reflexivity PURPOSE: This paper reviews and critically synthesizes the literature concerning culture and diversity published in occupational therapy between 2007 and 2014, tracing the major discourses and mapping the implications of four differing approaches: cultural competence, cultural relevance, cultural safety, and cultural humility. KEY ISSUES: Approaches differ in where they situate the "problem," how they envision change, the end goal, and the application to a range of types of diversity. IMPLICATIONS: The latter two are preferred approaches for their attention to power relations and potential to encompass a range of types of social and cultural diversity.
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 | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".