Critical approaches in physical therapy research: Investigating the symbolic value of walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research using a critical social science perspective is uncommon in physiotherapy (PT) despite its potential advantages for investigating questions other approaches cannot address. Critical approaches can be used to expose ideas and concepts that are dominant, given, or taken-for-granted in practice in order to reflect on how "things could be otherwise." The purpose of this paper is to use an example of research examining the symbolic value of walking to outline the key features of critical research and its application to PT. The study drew from Pierre Bourdieu's sociology of practice to illuminate how socially ingrained notions of normality and disability are reflected in rehabilitation practices and affect parents and children with cerebral palsy. Dominant social assumptions about the value of walking are shown to shape individual choices and contribute to parental feelings of angst and doubt, and negative self-identities for children. The example reveals how critical approaches to research can be used to reveal the socio-political dimension of rehabilitation practice and address important research questions that have been largely neglected.
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 | 0.041 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.128 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".