Knowing from Whence We Came: Reflecting on Return-to-Work and Interpersonal Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much as the medical reformers of the early 1900s believed that occupational therapists could assist patients in their efforts to rejoin society as contributing members, we believe that we can help people to lead satisfying and productive lives. Work (or productivity) and the notion of the spirit, have been entwined within occupational therapy since its inception. The connection was apparent in the badge worn by ward aides in World War I, which was described as emblematic of "the nobility of work lighting up mind, body and spirit". As in war-time, when the spirit can so readily be broken, much of our work today requires us to help mend broken spirits. It is here that we use our interpersonal skills to understand our clients' view of the world, and to enter into an alliance with them; it is here that we draw upon our own sense of compassion. As we evolve in our approach to clients, and move from therapy to enabling, from being a helping profession to a service provider, let us take care to preserve the sense of compassion with which our profession came into being. That compassion will influence what we do as practitioners and how we do it.
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 | 0.017 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".