MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520617368 · doi:10.1177/1539449216652622

Ascribing Meaning to Occupation

2016· article· en· W2520617368 on OpenAlexaff
Michal Avrech Bar, Susan Forwell, Catherine L. Backman

Bibliographic record

VenueOTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)PsychologySample (material)Social psychologyProcess (computing)EpistemologySociologyComputer sciencePhilosophyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ascribing meaning to occupation is a multifaceted process. Understanding this process is illusive, yet fundamental to theory and practice. The objective is to describe the meaning that mothers ascribe to their occupations. A secondary analysis was conducted with data from a convenience sample of 35 Israeli mothers, ages 25 to 45 years. Data were collected using the Occupational Performance History Interview as part of a larger study. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and content analysis applied. Two main categories emerged: the meaning of "giving" (investing values) and the meaning of "receiving" (ensuring needs are met). Values such as responsibility require mothers to do occupations they find less desirable than others associated with the mothering role. The study illustrates how values and needs are intertwined to contribute to the meaning of occupation. Moreover, meaningful occupations can be undesirable but doing them arises from the values that drive mothers to fulfill this role.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.017
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.472
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.139 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of ResearchSame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207