Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational therapists open doors to occupation. The goal of occupational therapy is to enable people to engage in occupations that support and bring meaning to daily life. With this vision, we have a responsibility to create and use knowledge to ensure our commitment to the rights of all people to participate fully in daily life. Over the past 30 years, we have gained substantive knowledge from research from occupational therapy, occupational science and other disciplines. Sources of knowledge for occupational therapy come from person/people’s needs, values, dreams; therapists’ wisdom and reasoning; and research.In this paper, I examine how to use current knowledge and create the knowledge needed for the future. Specifically, I discuss dimensions of knowledge, knowledge creation frameworks, knowledge translation and the process of learning. We have a responsibility to build a knowledge creation process consistent with occupational therapy values. The creation and use of knowledge is complex and does not happen automatically. Given this complexity, we must guard against a focus on creating knowledge that applies universally and does not take into account culture, context and individual needs. Knowledge creation in occupational therapy can be a wonderful journey – bringing together experience and action to learn by doing.
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 | 0.003 | 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) | 0.008 | 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".