Paediatric Occupational Therapists' Reflections on Meaning in Professional Practice: A Phenomenological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The construct of meaning plays an important role in the theories and models that inform occupational therapy; yet little research has examined the construct of meaning within the professional practices of occupational therapists. PURPOSE: The purpose of this research is to gain a deeper understanding of the meanings occupational therapists identify within their professional practice occupations. METHODS: A phenomenological methodology was adopted for this study. Eight paediatric occupational therapists participated in in-depth, semi-structured interviews, which were tape-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. FINDINGS: Seven major themes were identified: Relating to clients as human beings, making a positive difference, working as a team, permission to have fun, congruency of values, support in the workplace, and artistry of practice. IMPLICATIONS: The study contributes to knowledge about accounts of meaning in the working lives of paediatric occupational therapists and highlights potential implications for therapists, clients, teams, organizations, and for the profession.
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 | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".