Understanding the Occupational Deprivation of Refugees: A Case Study from Kosovo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational deprivation as a concept has been presented and discussed in the occupational therapy and occupational science literature for the past several years. The discussion to date, however, has been largely exploratory and theoretical in nature. PURPOSE: This article represents the author's attempt to further understandings of occupational deprivation as a lived experience through research undertaken with Kosovar refugees living in Australia. METHOD AND RESULT: The article focuses on the story of one of the participants of the study which is presented as a case study to illuminate aspects of occupational deprivation as a process occurring over time. The case study is interwoven with interpretive commentary, which serves to highlight key issues as to how occupational deprivation may be experienced by groups of people in different cultural, historic and societal contexts and how it may therefore be addressed by occupational therapists. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The article concludes with reflections on future directions with respect to both further research and professional action. In particular, the focus of professional action is oriented to a population-based approach.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".