Illustrating the Importance of Critical Epistemology to Realize the Promise of Occupational Justice
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
This article argues that it is vital to embrace critical reflexivity to interrogate the epistemological beliefs and principles guiding occupation-based scholarship to move away from frameworks that are incongruent with calls for occupational justice. For this purpose, we describe an epistemic tension between the stated intentions to demonstrate that occupation-based work can be a means to create a more just society and the epistemological beliefs that have historically dominated occupation-based scholarship. To exemplify the potential implications of this tension, a critical analysis of Creswell's social justice/transformative design is presented, illustrating that work that expresses a commitment to social justice while relying on positivist/postpositivist assumptions often risks perpetuating injustices through neglecting their sociopolitical construction. Drawing upon critical social theory, we highlight how engagement with critical epistemological assumptions can facilitate addressing the sociopolitical "roots" of occupational injustices and highlight directions for social transformation.
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 | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it