Negotiation-Centred versus Client-Centred: Which Approach Should Be Used?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For nearly 20 years, Canadian occupational therapists have attached great importance to the client-centred approach within their practice. Professionals have agreed to define this approach through a philosophy built around the concepts of respect, power and partnership. But no reported work has really clarified what is meant by these three fundamental concepts. This article attempts to define the concepts of respect and power in the therapist-client relationship through a review of occupational therapy and related health and social sciences literature. It raises the question: "In the professional-client relationship, should the power reside with the client or is a more balanced approach needed?" This paper also proposes using the term negotiation instead of partnership, since negotiation seems to offer more applications for occupational therapy practice. The objective of the authors who advocate for greater negotiation between client and therapist is to stimulate analysis.
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 | 0.059 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".