Addictions and Impulse-Control Disorders as Occupation: A Selected Literature Review and Synthesis
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".