Do French-speaking occupational therapists in Europe succeed in having occupation-focused and occupation-based practice ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les occupations sont un concept central en ergothérapie. Cependant, peu d’études empiriques se sont intéressées à la manière dont les ergothérapeutes intègrent celles-ci dans leur pratique. Le présent article expose les résultats d’un sondage électronique réalisé auprès de 50 ergothérapeutes francophones européens visant à décrire comment ceux-ci ont une pratique fondée sur les occupations. Les réalisations rapportées sont variées, la plupart étant davantage basées sur les occupations plutôt que focalisées sur celles-ci. Les ergothérapeutes sondés rapportent le recours à l’entrevue occupationnelle, à la cuisine thérapeutique et à l’implication de leurs clients dans la réalisation d’activités de la vie courante. Toutefois, ils mentionnent rencontrer des obstacles, principalement la résistance du client et la disponibilité de ressources matérielles. Ils affirment les surmonter particulièrement par l’adaptation et la gradation d’activités, par le recours aux discussions et à la collaboration avec les autres professionnels ainsi que par la communication efficace avec leurs clients. _________________________________________________________________________ Do French-speaking occupational therapists in Europe succeed in having occupation-focused and occupation-based practice ? Occupations are a central notion in occupational therapy. Up till now, few empirical studies address the issues of integrating occupations within their practice. This article presents the survey results obtained from 50 French-speaking occupational therapists. The participants have identified varied achievements done within their practice. Those are mostly occupation-based than occupation-focused. The achievements are related to occupational interviewing, therapeutic cooking and client involvement in carrying out activities of daily living. However, they perceive obstacles, such as client resistance and resources availability. They report overcoming them by activity adaptation, advocacy and collaboration with other professionals, as well as effective communication with clients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".