Reflections on a Renaissance of Occupation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the close of the 20th century, there is a renaissance of occupation in occupational therapy and occupational science. Kielhofner (1992) offers an intraprofessional explanation that the growing interest in occupation recaptures occupational therapy's lost identity. An extraprofessional explanation is that postmodern ideas and social practices have helped to create a societal context in which a renaissance of occupation is welcome. Postmodernism raises questions and awareness of power, diversity, temporality, and situatedness in which normative ideas of occupation as paid work can be challenged. Since occupation is of primary concern to occupational therapy and occupational science, the authors reflect on postmodernism and its influence on a renaissance of occupation in these two fields. These reflections consider what such a renaissance means for occupational therapists and occupational scientists in the 21st century.
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 | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".