Activity Use in Occupational Therapy: Occupational Therapy Students' Fieldwork Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the results of a small quantitative study conducted with 54 occupational therapy students. The data, gathered using a purpose-designed questionnaire, were based on respondents' reports of the 662 activities seen during their fieldwork education. These were categorised using headings from the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (Law et al 1994). The findings showed that client-related leisure activities were the most frequently seen in all practice settings (physical disability, mental health and learning disability). The activities seen most often consisted of those in the ‘quiet recreation’ category. Activities aimed at productivity, and particularly at household management, were also widely spread. Such activities formed a smaller but consistent percentage of those seen in all fields of practice. Self-care, and in particular personal care, activities were most prevalent in physical disability settings, but formed a lower percentage of the activities seen elsewhere. This article discusses these findings in relation to previous research in the field and considers the continuing place of activity in occupational therapy and in undergraduate occupational therapy education.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".