Occupational Therapists’ Views of Nussbaum’s Life Capability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Life Capability is the first and most fundamental of Nussbaum's 10 Central Human Functional Capabilities (CHFCs). This capability refers to a person having a quality life of normal duration. The purpose of this study was to explore the views' of occupational therapists about Life Capability, specifically, their perspectives of this capability and its perceived relevance to practice. Semi-structured interviews with 14 occupational therapists in British Columbia, Canada, were conducted and thematically analyzed. Within this Canadian context, three themes emerged regarding occupational therapists' views about Life Capability: basic human right, quality of life, and longevity. Occupational therapists appear to view Life Capability as being consistent with the values of the occupational therapy profession. Nussbaum's other CHFCs warrant study to explore the degree to which the Capabilities Approach could complement existing occupational therapy theories, science, and practice.
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 | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".