Client-centred occupational therapy in Canada: Refocusing on core values / Recentrer l’ergothérapie au Canada sur les valeurs fondamentales de la pratique centrée sur le client
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian occupational therapy profession has proclaimed its allegiance to client-centred practice for three decades. However, official definitions of client-centred practice have been inconsistent, and its defining features, underlying assumptions, and power relations have been subjected to little critical reflection. PURPOSE: The aim was to reflect critically on Canadian conceptions of client-centred practice and its core values. KEY ISSUES: Definitions of client-centred practice have evolved and changed, suggesting that the occupational therapy profession in Canada may have abandoned those values that originally underpinned its vision of client-centred practice by electing to focus on the enabling skills of therapists. However, evidence suggests that clients value those qualities of client-centred practice that underpinned the profession's original vision. IMPLICATIONS: This paper proposes a renewed focus on respect-respect for clients; respect for clients' strengths, experience, and knowledge; respect for clients' moral right to make choices concerning their lives-and on fostering respectful, supportive relationships with clients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".