The Equity Lens for Occupational Therapy: A program development and evaluation tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists value the principles of health and health care equity and often face challenges addressing inequities within the systems in which they work. PURPOSE: We present the Equity Lens for Occupational Therapy (ELOT), a framework to provide a practical starting point for reflecting on equity issues and the ways inequities are enacted in daily practice. KEY ISSUES: Building on an existing occupational therapy practice model and well-established program development and evaluation processes, we overlay an equity lens. The lens provides a structured way to critically reflect on occupational therapy programs within their contexts and develop action strategies to prevent or redress inequities. IMPLICATIONS: Taking action on the multiple ways that inequities can be embedded in occupational therapy programs within health and social systems can be a daunting task. The ELOT provides a systematic way to stimulate critical reflection and dialogue, examine practice, focus social advocacy, and take action.
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 | 0.111 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".