The development of occupational science outside the Anglophone sphere: Enacting global collaboration
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
The emergence of occupational science in non-English speaking countries is frequently hampered by diverse barriers to global collaboration, knowledge dissemination, and inclusion in international dialogue. Epistemological, cultural, and institutional resources may explain these barriers, yet these have not been explored within the discipline. This paper discusses three main issues and three priorities for action put forward by participants during sessions held at two separate, international occupational science conferences. The sessions aimed to engage the audience in critical reflexivity and dialogue around the challenges present when non-English speaking countries attempt to develop occupational science scholarship and possible ways to support global collaboration. To stimulate discussion, we used a participatory methodology, ‘Metaplan’. The sessions included a statements exercise, reflections presented by the authors, individual reflexivity, and small group debate. The findings are structured as a reflexive dialogue where participants’ voices, theory, and the authors’ reflections are interwoven to enrich discussion of the issues participants identified and priorities for action. This paper contributes to decolonizing the development of occupational science and promoting an international dialogue that is open to diverse worldviews, by drawing attention to the visible and invisible barriers that limit collaboration and inclusion of the diverse ways in which occupation is understood and enacted worldwide.TAMBIÉN PUBLICADO EN ESPAÑOL https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2018.1551048
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 | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it