MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2960456392 · doi:10.1177/0308022619862111

Practice analysis: Critical reflexivity on discourses constraining socially transformative occupational therapy practices

2019· article· en· W2960456392 on OpenAlex
Lisette Farías, Debbie Laliberté Rudman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersOntario Trillium Foundation
KeywordsReflexivityOccupational therapyTransformative learningOccupational scienceCritical discourse analysisSociologyPsychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceSocial sciencePoliticsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statement of context: Despite recognition of the potential of occupation for enacting social transformation, occupational therapy continues to struggle in developing and enacting practice approaches that address sociopolitical barriers to people’s right to engage in occupations. Critical reflection on practice: Ways of thinking and writing about problems and solutions, that is discourses, shape occupational therapy practices. This article draws attention to three dominant discourses that constrain the development of occupational therapy practices aimed at social transformation, specifically, individualism, healthism and managerialism. Implications for practice: Examining discourses that bound occupational therapy practice can open spaces for alternative ways of thinking and more socially responsive practices addressing sociopolitical barriers to occupation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.344
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it