The Promise of Occupational Science: A Developmental Assessment of an Emerging Academic Discipline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the late 1980's, occupational science was introduced as a basic discipline that would provide a foundation for occupational therapy. As occupational science grows and develops, some question its relationship to occupational therapy and criticize the direction and extent of its growth and development. PURPOSE: This study was designed to describe and critically analyze the growth and development of occupational science and characterize how this has shaped its current status and relationship to occupational therapy. METHOD: Using a mixed methods design, 54 occupational science documents published in the years 1990 and 2000 were critically analyzed to describe changes in the discipline between two points in time. Data describing a range of variables related to authorship, publication source, stated goals for occupational science and type of research were collected. RESULTS: Descriptive statistics, themes and future directions are presented and discussed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Through the support of a discipline that is dedicated to the pursuit of a full understanding of occupation, occupational therapy will help to create a new and complex body of knowledge concerning occupation. However, occupational therapy must continue to make decisions about how knowledge produced within occupational science and other disciplines can be best used in practice.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".