Dialogues for re-imagined praxis: using theory in practice to transform structural, ideological, and discursive “realities” with/in communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the close of this special issue, Re-imagining Therapeutic Recreation: Transformative Practices and Innovative Approaches, our aim is to create an action-oriented document that points to a series of conversations we can continue at conferences, in classrooms, and in practice. In keeping with the call for reflexivity, we hope the document will be a way to ignite further critical reflections and dialogues about the taken-for-granted ways we relate with others and to our practices. As the path of change unfolds, we celebrate the multiple ways of getting there. To help us in this critical reflection and conversation we offer a vignette providing insight into the experiences of one individual and engage a plurality of philosophies and theories to create three critical, socially engaged conversations we see to be crucial to the endeavour of re-imaging and creating change in practices of therapeutic recreation. As much as these dialogues are difficult and challenging, they contain within them possibilities for inspired moments of insight and awareness ripe with possibilities for celebration, playfulness, and change towards social justice.
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 | 0.055 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.102 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".