Measuring Occupational Balance: A Theoretical Exploration of Two Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational balance is a fundamental yet complex concept in occupational therapy requiring empirical study. PURPOSE: To advance the theoretical discussion of occupational balance, its measurement and relationship to well-being. METHODS: In part one of this 2-phase study, 122 adults completed a bipolar measure of occupational balance, the Cross Impact Matrix (CIM) of the Personal Project Analysis and two well-being measures: the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and Positive and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS). In part two, 24 adults completed the Inter-goal Relations Questionnaire (IRQ), a unipolar measure of occupational balance (harmony) and imbalance (conflict), plus the SWLS and PANAS. FINDINGS: Neither the CIM scores nor IRQ occupational balance/harmony were associated with well-being whereas the IRQ occupational imbalance/conflict was significantly associated with SWLS. IMPLICATIONS: Dimensions of occupational balance (conflict and harmony) may be best measured separately. To promote well-being attention can be given to reducing conflict across occupations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".