Reflections on: “So… What Do You Do?” Occupation and the Construction of Identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: What we do has always played a leading part in social conversations about who we are. In part, these social questions are about occupational identity. PURPOSE AND METHOD: Occupational identity is an emerging concept in the occupational therapy literature. In this paper, the concept of occupational identity is examined through the observations of a former research participant in a previous study on the meaning of gardens and gardening in daily life, and the recent work of researchers in occupational therapy and occupational science. RESULTS: Three themes are examined in these reflections. They are occupation and continuity of occupational identity, the contributions of productivity, leisure and self-care to occupational identity and, the public and private aspects of occupational identity. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Exploration with a client about what occupations are most meaningful in her or his life may be a means to understanding the person's construction of an occupational identity. Understanding the nature of the client's occupational identity may be a necessary beginning to developing a collaborative approach to what is needed in occupational therapy intervention.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".