Quality of life, participation and occupational rights: A capabilities perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research suggests that perceptions of diminished quality of life among people with a severe physical impairment might be a consequence of environmental barriers and inequity of opportunity rather than the impairment itself. However, occupational therapists remain preoccupied with assessing and addressing individual dysfunctions and have directed little attention to assessing and challenging inequitable environmental constraints on people's occupational opportunities. PURPOSE: To highlight briefly what is known about environmental impacts on quality of life among people with impairments; to outline the relationship between occupational rights and human rights; to explore the concept of 'participation' and thereafter to outline the relevance of the Capabilities Approach for occupational therapists who seek to address inequalities of occupational opportunity and inequities in participation. MAIN FINDINGS: Sen's Capabilities Approach focuses on equality of the opportunity to 'do', and is relevant to occupational therapy in the context of the World Health Organisation's construct of 'participation', the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the World Federation of Occupational Therapists' (WFOT) Position Statement on Human Rights. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of Sen's Capabilities Approach might facilitate critical occupational therapy practices focussed on equality of occupational opportunities and on the fulfilment of occupational rights, in accordance with the standards of rights-based practices advocated by disability scholars, WFOT and the UN.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".