Occupations and personal projects: A comparison of the concepts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The concept of personal projects has been used in occupational therapy research to understand occupation better. However, no clear distinction has been made between personal projects and occupations. An argumentative review was carried out to determine if the concepts of occupation, as outlined in the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement and the Person Environment Occupation Model and personal projects are interchangeable. Method Definitions of each concept and seven points of comparison were identified through reading and discussion of key material related to: framework and origins; association with health and well-being; consideration of the environment; individualized and self-directed nature; consideration of aspects of the person; categories; and balance. Findings Occupation and personal projects represent similar concepts when they refer to concrete and time-limited activities. More abstract and extended personal projects may be broken down into more concrete, shorter-term occupations. Differences were noted with respect to consideration of the environment, aspects of the person, categories and balance. Conclusion Differences in the way the environment, aspects of the person, categories and balance are considered in personal projects may provide helpful insights for occupational therapists as they attempt to practice in a client-centered, strengths-based manner with a focus on occupation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".