The Meaning of Occupation, Occupational Need, and Occupational Therapy in a Military Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite occupational therapists having strong historical ties to the Canadian military, there are currently no uniformed occupational therapists and only a few permanent occupational therapists employed by Canadian Forces. Occupational therapy is provided, in the main, through civilian occupational therapists. Occupational therapists have unique skills that can contribute to the existing Canadian Forces Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Services Department. To establish the depth and scope of their work, this article explains the theoretical underpinnings of occupational therapy. Examples are provided of possible occupational therapy for populations of Canadian Forces members: (1) those with transient, intermittent injuries; (2) those returning from overseas missions with very serious injuries or severe injuries; and (3) those with permanent injuries who are transitioning from the Canadian Forces into the civilian workforce. Interventions for mental health issues are interwoven with those targeting physical issues. The article suggests that occupational therapists employed on a permanent basis by the Canadian Forces can contribute in a more comprehensive manner to the wider rehabilitation of Canadian Forces members. The article has applicability to occupational therapy military services in other countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".