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 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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".