Opportunities for well-being: The right to occupational engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists' 2017 conference theme prompted thoughts about shaping our profession's future. PURPOSE: This Muriel Driver Memorial Lecture explores how occupational therapy's future might be shaped to become more important, relevant, and valuable to society. KEY ISSUES: Because occupational engagement is integral to human well-being and because well-being is integral to human rights, occupational therapy could usefully advance the right of all people to engage in occupations that contribute positively to their own well-being and the well-being of their communities. IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapy's importance to society will be manifested when we focus unambiguously on well-being; extend our efforts beyond enhancing the abilities of individuals whose lives are already impacted by illness, injury, or impairment; and address the opportunities for achieving well-being through occupational engagement of all those whose capabilities-their opportunities to do what they have the abilities to do-are inequitably constrained.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".