Addictions and Impulse-Control Disorders as Occupation: A Selected Literature Review and Synthesis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. The question addressed in this paper is: "Are activities that are classified as 'addictions' and 'impulse-control disorders' occupations?" Background. Current conceptualisations of occupation focus on positive contributions to health and well-being. We suggest that occupations are neither inherently healthy nor unhealthy but are associated with positive and/or negative consequences. Methods. Integrative and interpretative literature syntheses were undertaken. Findings. Findings demonstrated that activities classified as addictions and impulse-control disorders meet the criteria of occupation, in that they give meaning to life; are important determinants of health, well-being and justice; organize behaviour; develop and change over a lifetime; shape and are shaped by environments and have therapeutic potential. Conclusion. The findings have implications for the conceptualisation of occupations, including the relationship between occupation and health, the potential risk for negative consequences through occupational engagement, a deeper exploration of occupational patterns and performance and the influence of context. Finally, a potential role for occupational science in the field of addictions and impulse-control disorders is proposed.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it