Introducing a Critical Analysis of the Figured World of Occupation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This critical analysis of occupational science examines the figured world of occupation. Figured worlds are ‘typical’ representations of a particular construct based on taken-for-granted theories and stories developed through experience and “guided, shaped, and normed” though social interactions (Gee, 2011, p. 76). Drawing on theoretical articles published primarily in the Journal of Occupational Science, a discussion regarding the values and assumptions underlying occupational science is presented. It is proposed that there are tendencies to identify occupations as “positive” and to focus on the relationship of occupational engagement to enhanced health and well-being. At the same time, there may be an implicit exclusion of activities that are considered ‘negative,’ ‘unhealthy’ or ‘deviant’ from the figured world of occupation, which has the potential to stigmatise and marginalise individuals or collectives. It is suggested that occupational science may have a significant role to play in developing critical understandings of the social construction of occupations as moral or immoral, deviant or normal, and healthy or unhealthy. The role of occupational science in (re-)presenting occupations is framed as a social justice issue that contributes to the social construction of ways of acting and ways of being.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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".