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
Leadership is vital to the success and sustainability of any group, organization, or profession. Using a qualitative phenomenological methodology, consistent with interpretative phenomenological analysis, this study examines why occupational therapists choose the path of leadership. Data was collected through the completion of semistructured interviews with 10 occupational therapy leaders in Ontario, Canada. This collected data was transcribed verbatim and coded for themes by multiple coders. Several methods were employed to establish trustworthiness. Results identify that a desire to influence the profession or care delivery, a need for personal or career development, and a need for change motivate those occupational therapists who might choose the path of leadership. Recommendations for supporting new or developing leaders include a focus on linking occupational therapy practice and leadership theory at the curriculum and professional levels. Moreover, application of novel approaches to mentorship for new and developing leaders, such as supportive communities of practice, are also considered.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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