Bibliographic record
Abstract
The occupational therapy profession in Canada has been engaged in an active debate for many years concerning the centrality of spirituality as a core construct of practice. If, indeed, occupational therapy is to follow its mission of focusing on an occupation-based mandate within health promotion and health care environments, then it is critical to “take the bull by the horns” and define our terms clearly in order to understand and be able to discuss and explain the central tenets of why we do what we do. The occupational therapy program at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, offers an entry level master ’s program, and has undergone a major curriculum development process over the past five years. The curriculum remains a two-year experience, and is built upon principles of problem-based, learner-centred, self-directed learning. The previous model (based on impairment, disease populations, and developmental stages) has been replaced by a model that reflects the very nature and processes of practice. Consequently, students within the new curriculum are introduced immediately to the underlying theories of occupational therapy practice. They grapple with the current seminal debates within the discipline very early in their professional preparation. Spirituality as the centre of unique meaning in everyone’s life is one of the most critical of those debates. In this chapter, I will outline the history of occupational therapy as a discipline, highlighting the emergence of “spirituality” as a core concept and the evolving definition of “spirit”; provide key definitions of
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 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".