Constructions of Disability: A Call for Critical Reflexivity in Occupational Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Within professional and practice knowledge there are many assumptions about disability that underpin occupational therapy philosophy. PURPOSE: The objectives of this paper are to (a) critically examine how disability has been constructed in mainstream society by introducing perspectives from contemporary disability studies theories, and (b) apply a critically reflexive lens informed by disability studies perspectives to occupational therapy practice. KEY ISSUES: Drawing upon critical disability perspectives, notions of "nondisabled" versus "disabled"; metanarratives of disability; built environments and social structures; and social and attitudinal constructions of disability and identity are examined. Key issues pertaining to rehabilitation, norms, client-centred practice, language, and education within occupational therapy are discussed. IMPLICATIONS: This critically reflexive examination has revealed the ways in which occupational therapy and society at large are embedded in discourses that may reinforce negative connotations around disability. A renewed understanding of disability may challenge current practices.
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 | 0.152 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.233 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.051 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".