Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although claiming that engagement in occupations influences well-being, the occupational therapy profession has largely failed to acknowledge and address the relationships between well-being, occupation, and human rights. PURPOSE: This paper supports the premise that the focus of occupational therapy should be on the right of all people to participate in meaningful occupations, and proposes allegiance to occupational rights: the right of all people to engage in meaningful occupations that contribute positively to their own well-being and the well-being of their communities. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The connection between well-being and human rights would be made explicit, occupational rights would be recognized as a political issue and the profession's confinement within health-care services would end. This commitment to occupational rights would bring our practice into line with our espoused belief in the relationship between occupation and well-being, and enable us to state, unequivocally, what occupational therapy contributes to humanity.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| 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".