The Accountability–Well-Being–Ethics framework: A new philosophical foundation for occupational therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The context that supported occupational therapy's inception has been replaced with new challenges brought on by globalization and dramatic changes in health care. Thus, the profession's philosophical grounding needs to be reframed to (a) achieve balance between science-driven and holistic elements, (b) operate within larger contexts on problems brought on by sociopolitical and natural determinants of health, and (c) maintain an ethical identity across all arenas of practice. PURPOSE: This paper presents a brief discussion of the philosophical underpinnings in occupational therapy's history, outlines new global challenges for the profession, and proposes a new framework to address these challenges through education, practice, and research. KEY ISSUES: Occupational therapy finds itself practising in a growing number of middle- and low-income countries where its roles and values need to be context and culture specific. IMPLICATIONS: The Accountability-Well-Being-Ethics framework guides the three domains of education, research, and practice to be relevant in an increasingly complex world.
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 | 0.031 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.114 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".