Intrinsicality: Reconsidering Spirituality, Meaning(s) and Mandates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian occupational therapists have placed spirituality as the central core of their theoretical Model, depicting inner and outer selves that contradict simultaneous declarations concerning the integration of mind/body/spirit. Even the word spirituality has discrepant meanings and failure to articulate one chosen meaning leads to ambiguity. This paper argues that occupational therapists must agree upon a single definition of spirituality that is congruent with our professional mandate and philosophical perspective; and that prevention of misunderstandings between and amongst clients and other health care professionals demands recourse to our own terminology. It is proposed that intrinsicality be employed to articulate the personal philosophy of meaning with which we interpret our lives. Influenced by environmental context and in homeostatic relationship with the body and mind, intrinsicality constitutes the essence of the self and informs occupational choices based upon personal values and priorities. Acknowledgement of intrinsicality respects the uniqueness of individuals' meanings.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 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".