A vision for occupational science: Reflecting on our disciplinary culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper highlights and discusses key questions for the continued development of occupational science, contending that reflexivity and dialogue addressing these questions are essential to achieve complex understandings of occupation. The questions, which relate to disciplinary identity, the relation between science and practice, relevance, interdisciplinarity and internationalization, evolved from dialogue amongst the authors who collectively worked towards a shared vision for occupational science in the context of a doctoral course. This paper does not seek to build consensus around this vision, but rather identifies issues vital to consider as occupational science continues to evolve. Disciplinary culture is proposed to be a useful starting point for dialogue, as this encompasses the values, assumptions and beliefs that shape what we seek to know about occupation and how we seek to know. The paper also calls for further consideration of pluralism in relation to occupational science.
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 | 0.090 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.154 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.050 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.040 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".