Meaning of Occupational Engagement in Life-Threatening Illness: A Qualitative Pilot Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The onset of a personal crisis combined with the resultant disruption in occupational routines may challenge a person's identity as a capable and healthy individual. However, it remains unclear how individuals regain a sense of health and well-being in the period following a personal crisis. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: To explore occupational engagement and its meaning to individuals following a life-threatening diagnosis. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three women diagnosed with breast cancer. The data were analyzed using a constant-comparative approach to identify common themes. RESULTS: The primary theme that emerged was "Doing = Living." This theme and the underlying themes illustrated the connection between meaningful occupational engagement and one's self-perception as capable and healthy. These findings suggest that occupational engagement may provide the medium through which 'deconstructive' or 'reconstructive' messages concerning the self are relayed between persons and their environment. IMPLICATIONS: In a period of personal crisis, such as a life-threatening diagnosis, individuals may turn to those occupations that are meaningful to regain a sense of control and normalcy in their lives.
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 | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".