Occupation, well-being, and culture: Theory and cultural humility / Occupation, bien-être et culture : la théorie et l’humilité culturelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement depicts individuals embedded within cultural environments that afford occupational possibilities. Culture pertains not solely to ethnicity or race but to any dimension of diversity, including class, gender, sexual orientation, and ability. PURPOSE: This paper highlights specific dimensions of cultural diversity and their relationships to occupational engagement and well-being. KEY ISSUES: Cultural variations constitute the basis for a socially constructed hierarchy of traits that significantly determine occupational opportunities and impact mental health and well-being. Cultural humility is an approach to redressing power imbalances in client-therapist relationships by incorporating critical self-evaluation and recognizing that cultural differences lie not within clients but within client-therapist relationships. IMPLICATIONS: It is proposed that theoretical relevance would be enhanced if culturally diverse perspectives were incorporated into theories of occupation. Cultural humility is advocated as an approach to theoretical development and in efforts to counter professional Eurocentrism, ethnocentrism, and intellectual colonialism.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".