An Argument for Pragmatism as a Foundational Philosophy of Occupational Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 1986, Estelle Breines argued that occupational therapy identity problems could be resolved by acquiring tools that enable therapists to analyze their profession in a sophisticated manner. Breines identified philosophical inquiry as one of these tools. PURPOSE: This study examined how pragmatism can provide a philosophical framework for occupational therapy practice and knowledge. METHOD: An analysis of a sample of occupational therapy literature, philosophy of pragmatism literature, and Slagle lectures delivered between 1955 and 1995 was completed. Themes underlying the assumptions, principles, and values articulated in the literature and the Slagle lectures were identified and compared. RESULTS: Findings of the analysis indicate that some of the core assumptions, principles, and values of occupational therapy as identified in occupational therapy literature and the Slagle lectures are conceptually consistent with those of the philosophy of pragmatism. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Pragmatism may provide a philosophical framework to organize the knowledge and practice of occupational therapy and assist with clarifying the profession's identity.
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 | 0.040 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.101 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".