Critical reflections on occupational justice: Toward a rights-based approach to occupational opportunities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational justice is cited throughout the occupational science and occupational therapy literatures despite little scholarly attention either to its definition or to how situations of occupational justice are identifiable. PURPOSE: This paper aims to contribute a critique of occupational justice, explore the concepts of justice and (occupational) rights, and support a capabilities approach to inform rights-based occupational therapy practices. KEY ISSUES: No clear definition of occupational justice or differentiation from social justice exists despite the longevity of the concept, and theorists frequently confuse the concepts of justice and rights. A rights-based focus provides an unambiguous mandate for occupational therapists, with the capabilities approach offering a cross-disciplinary framework to inform rights-based practices. IMPLICATIONS: The concept of occupational rights is consistent with the rights-based focus advocated by the disabled people's movement, articulated by the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, and affirmed by the World Federation of Occupational Therapists' position on the centrality of occupation to health, well-being, and human rights.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.005 | 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 it