Professionalism and occupational therapy: An exploration of faculty and students’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Professionalism is a complex, multifaceted concept embedded within the curricula of occupational therapy programs and professional documents; yet there is no clear explanation in the literature. PURPOSE: To explore occupational therapy faculty and students' perspectives of the meaning of professionalism. METHODS: This interpretivist qualitative study used convenience sampling to recruit eight second-year occupational therapy master's students and five occupational therapy faculty members to participate in two separate focus groups. Open-coding and constant comparative methods were used to identify themes. FINDINGS: Data analysis yielded the following student focus group themes: uncertainty about professional expectations; searching for answers through concrete concepts; and the context-specific nature of professionalism. Faculty focus group themes were professional responsibility; professional awareness; and the context-specific nature of professionalism. Understanding and enacting professionalism may be a developmental process. IMPLICATIONS: Further exploration of the meaning of professionalism from a variety of other occupational therapy stakeholders is needed.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".