Building occupational therapy practice ecological based occupations and ecosystem sustainability: exploring the concept of eco-occupation to support intergenerational occupational justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes that occupational therapists must take on the role of agents of change in order to act in an eco-responsible way towards the population. Our recent literature review explores the critique of the foundations of the occupational therapist profession through the perspective of professional practices focused on eco-systems, and its respect rather than its exploitation. Several concepts have been defined in order to support occupational therapists in understanding the current and future challenges of populations, especially those most vulnerable to the climate and ecological crisis. These concepts thus aim to maintain the balance of ecosystems, promote eco-occupations and support intergenerational occupational justice. It is therefore important for us, occupational therapists, to be rooted in eco-humanist values, to be aware of the real role we face as citizens of the world. It is also about engaging us to build on our professional identity to give meaning to our new professional activities and support eco-social and sustainable occupational therapy.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".