The Debate: Is it time to reconsider framing our work as therapy?: Developing the profession of Occupational Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through much of the 20th century, occupational therapists around the world, privately and publicly, debated the relevance of the word occupation to name our profession. By the end of that century a renewed commitment to occupation as our professional focus, our main domain of concern, emerged. New a new debate is emerging: occupational therapists are beginning to question the appropriateness of the word therapy as the descriptor of our professional work. This workshop will bring this issue into our professional forum for debate. This workshop will take the form of a formal debate on the motion: ‘This house believes that it is time to reconsider framing our work as therapy’. Learning objectives: 1. Reflect on the meaning of our profession’s title: occupational therapy 2. Recognize the implications of identifying ourselves as therapists in today’s world 3. Reach a decision about the appropriateness of calling ourselves occupational therapists Teaching methods: The session will be structured as a formal moderated debate: argued by a proposer and opponent and two seconders each, lasting 60 minutes. At the beginning, the moderator will ask the audience to vote on the motion. The format will be as follows: the proposer speaks to the motion for seven minutes; the opposer speaks against the motion for seven minutes; the four seconders speak in turn for three minutes each, for and against the motion; the moderator invites contributions from the audience for a maximum of one minute each, and the debate ends with a final vote.
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 | 0.082 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.056 | 0.058 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.036 | 0.048 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".