Thomas Bessell Kidner and the Development of Occupational Therapy in the United Kingdom: Establishing the Links
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This historical research describes the life and work of Thomas Bessell Kidner (1866-1932). The purpose of the article is threefold: to describe Kidner's British heritage, to suggest how Kidner's background may have influenced his contributions to the early development of the profession, and to examine how Kidner's contributions have influenced practice. Using methods appropriate to interpretive biography, primary and secondary source materials have been gathered and analysed relating to Kidner's education and early work experiences in England; his work in Canada, teaching manual training and as Vocational Secretary during the First World War; and his time in the United States, with particular reference to his role with the American Occupational Therapy Association. The analysis suggests that Kidner brought the ideology of educational reform, as manifested in manual training, into occupational therapy and that this work provided a foundation for his approach to the treatment of injured soldiers. Kidner's efforts to help the profession to survive and expand after the war, with the consequent alignment with medicine, are also highlighted. His contact with the profession and with key individuals, such as Elizabeth Casson, in the United Kingdom is also explored. Finally, Kidner's contributions are considered in the light of how the profession might have developed had circumstances been different.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".