Do occupational justice concepts inform occupational therapists’ practice? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Occupational justice and related concepts can inform practices directed at injustice and the lack of rights in daily life. Brazilian ideas about social occupational therapy seem to be similar to these concepts about inequality. Purpose. This study aimed to answer the questions, “Do occupational justice concepts inform occupational therapists’ professional actions?” and “How are occupational justice concepts connected to Brazilian ideas about social occupational therapy?” Method. A secondary analysis was undertaken of a scoping review using occupational justice and related concepts as keywords. Descriptive and categorical analyses were used to classify the extract data. Findings. We selected 42 articles that specify occupational therapy practices, classified as individual approaches ( n = 13), individual-integrated-with-social approaches ( n = 22), and social approaches ( n = 7). It was found that occupational justice concepts have informed individual approaches and that the second and third approaches can be connected with social occupational therapy. Implications. Dialogue for sharing knowledge, concepts, and practices of occupational therapy worldwide can be inspired by this review.
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 | 0.020 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".