Doing Occupational Justice: A Central Dimension of Everyday Occupational Therapy Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: The Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (CAOT) and the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) state that occupational justice is part of the domain of occupational therapy and that occupational justice is "an aspect of contexts and environments and an outcome of intervention" (AOTA, 2014, p. S9). KEY ISSUES.: Despite the increasing focus on justice in the occupational therapy and the occupational science literature, many practitioners in traditional settings do not see its relevance to their everyday practice (Galvin, Wilding, & Whiteford, 2011) or have difficulty envisioning how to enact a justice-informed practice. PURPOSE.: This paper demonstrates how occupational justice is germane to all settings of occupational therapy, and how it can be enacted at micro, meso, and macro levels of occupational therapy practice. IMPLICATIONS.: We argue that occupational therapy is a justice-oriented profession at its core and will discuss how occupational justice can be enacted at all levels of practice.
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 | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".