The Artistry of Judgement: A Model for Occupational Therapy Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on a model developed through qualitative research to examine the intriguing topic of the artistry of judgement in occupational therapy. The construct of professional practice judgement artistry or PPJA was developed (Paterson and Higgs 2001) to explore the cognitive, metacognitive and humanistic aspects of judgement in professional practice. Fifty-three occupational therapy educators and practitioners from four Commonwealth countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom) participated in focus groups and individual interviews over a one-year period in 2001–2. This research identified a number of dimensions and elements that constitute judgement artistry. The model offers a valuable insight into understanding expertise in professional practice in an era when practitioners are struggling with a demand for increased scientific research knowledge to provide evidence for best practice. This research paper recognises the value of the art of occupational therapy and supports a client-centred approach to practice.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".