Promoting an occupational perspective in public health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the value of occupation for health and well-being is fundamental to the occupational therapy profession, this view is not well recognized in the field of public health. PURPOSE: In this article, we argue that occupational therapists have a unique and valuable perspective to bring to the field of public health, particularly with respect to the importance of occupational engagement in promoting the health and well-being of Canadians. KEY ISSUES: There are many compelling reasons for public health advocacy, including the need to increase awareness of the health benefits and risks of occupational engagement for individuals and communities. Challenges that lie ahead, however, include issues related to terminology, the complexity of occupation, the need to consider multidimensional outcomes, and diversity of evidence. IMPLICATIONS: To move forward, the profession of occupational therapy in Canada needs to position health promotion messaging in a way that clearly captures the complexity and value of occupation and resonates with Canadians of all ages and abilities.
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 | 0.027 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".