The historical shift towards human rights in occupational therapy with special reference to the Capabilities Approach and its implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a shift in the perspective of care of people with disabilities, specifically, from an emphasis on biomedical needs for human rights. Although occupational therapists have had a tradition of empowering people's capabilities, only recently has a human rights perspective been advanced within the profession. In this review, we describe the historical shift over recent decades in approaches to rehabilitation services including occupational therapy, from traditional biomedical and social approaches to progressive socio-political and human rights approaches. Of the human rights approaches, Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach appears particularly consistent with contemporary occupational therapy professional values and perspectives. Further, its systematic adoption has implications for teaching and research as well as practice in occupational therapy. The integration of a human rights approach, such as the Capabilities Approach, within occupational therapy would clearly align occupational therapy with human rights initiatives of the United Nations and World Health Organization.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".