Characteristics of the<i>Occupational Therapy Journal of Research:</i>The First Twenty Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As evidence-based practitioners, occupational therapists are required to keep abreast of the relevant professional literature, be able to understand and critique research, and to incorporate improvements into daily practice for the benefit of clients (Barber, 1990). The current study proposes to assist readers in this responsibility through a retrospective analysis of the Occupational Therapy Journal of Research (OTJR) between 1981 and 2000. A total of 452 manuscripts were published on a broad range of topics in the OTJR during this period, 75.4% of which were feature articles with a strong research focus. Author characteristics and collaboration, subject and specialty themes, and reference list citations are examined and implications discussed. As a primary research journal together with publications that have a clinical or practice orientation, the OTJR is an important reference source for evidence-based practice. It will be interesting to monitor how OTJR evolves as the primary occupational therapy research journal since changing its focus in 2002.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".