A vision for occupational science: Reflecting on our disciplinary culture
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it