Advancing the use of theory in occupational therapy: A collaborative process / Promouvoir l’application de la théorie en ergothérapie : un processus de collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Theory is important to the growth and evolution of occupational therapy. However, use of theory remains challenging for many therapists. PURPOSE: The aim was to develop a process that occupational therapists could apply to advance theory in practice. METHOD: Based on a review of the literature and using a qualitative instrumental case study design, 18 student occupational therapists and eight fieldwork educators completed online modules on the theory advancement concepts generated from the literature, wrote journals, and/or participated in online discussions during fieldwork. Following fieldwork, educators were interviewed and students participated in focus groups exploring their experiences. Directed content analysis was used to analyze the data. FINDINGS: Based on the data collected, we developed the Theory Advancement Process (TAP). The TAP is composed of four primary contexts, a climate of collaborative relationships with four key elements, and four essential processes. IMPLICATIONS: The TAP presents a collaborative process for students, faculty, and therapists to work together to advance the use of theory in 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".