Family Routines and Rituals: A Context for Occupational Therapy Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper explores the importance of family daily routines and rituals for the family's functioning and sense of identity. METHODS: The findings of this paper are derived from an analysis of the morning routines of 40 families with children with disabilities in the United States and Canada. The participants lived in urban and rural areas. Forty of the 49 participants were mothers and the majority of the families were of European descent. Between one and four interviews were conducted with each participant. Topics included the family's story, daily routines, and particular occupations. Data on the morning routines of the families were analyzed for order and affective and symbolic meaning using a narrative approach. FINDINGS: The findings are presented as narratives of morning activities in five families. These narratives are examples for rituals, routines, and the absence of a routine. Rituals are discussed in terms of their affective and symbolic qualities, routines are discussed in terms of the order they give to family life, whereas the lack of family routine is discussed in terms of lack of order in the family. CONCLUSIONS: Family routines and rituals are organizational and meaning systems that may affect family's ability to adapt them.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".