MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095389791 · doi:10.2182/cjot.06.0016

Defining Spirituality and Giving Meaning to Occupation: The Perspective of Community-Dwelling Older Adults with Autonomy Loss

2007· article· en· W2095389791 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jennifer A. Griffith, Chantal Caron, Johanne Desrosiers, Rachel Thibeault

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux de ChicoutimiCentre Integre de Sante et de Services Sociaux de Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityMeaning (existential)AutonomyPsychologyIdentity (music)Social psychologyGrounded theoryQualitative researchPerspective (graphical)SociologyPsychotherapistAestheticsMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance, meaningful occupation involves interaction between spirituality and environment. However little research exists on the process of giving meaning to occupation. PURPOSE: This study explored both meaningful occupation and the definition of spirituality from the perspective of community-dwelling older adults with autonomy loss. METHOD: Using a qualitative approach, grounded theory method of Glaser and Strauss (1967), eight cognitively intact persons were interviewed individually. RESULTS: The process of giving meaning to occupation involves an intrinsic link between identity and meaningful occupation, with identity being central to the person. Following autonomy loss, a process of adjusting identity, involving social, psychological and spiritual aspects, occurs over time. Spirituality is defined in terms of its close links to religion and belief in a benevolent greater power. IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH: This study contributes to the discussion of the concepts of spirituality, identity and meaning in occupational therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207