Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Powerful professions have the capacity to obtain leadership positions, advocate successfully in the policy arena, and secure the resources necessary to achieve their professional goals. Within the occupational therapy profession, cultivating power and confidence among our practitioners is essential to realize our full capacity for meeting society's occupational needs. PURPOSE AND KEY ISSUES: Drawing from a historical analysis of the medical and nursing professions, this paper discusses the implications of power and disempowerment among health professions for their practitioners, clients, and public image. Theoretical perspectives on power from social psychology, politics, organizational management, and post-structuralism are introduced and their relevance to the profession of occupational therapy is examined. IMPLICATIONS: The paper concludes with recommendations for occupational therapy practitioners to analyze their individual sources of power and evaluate opportunities to develop confidence and secure power for their professional work--in venues both in and outside the workplace.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".