A Community of Practice of primary health care occupational therapists: Advancing practice‐based knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: New contexts of practice demand that professionals engage in critical reflection to handle new situations and to create new knowledge that is responsive to professional practices situated in unique historical and social contexts. Community of Practice offers a framework for professions to reflect together on practice dilemmas and to generate practical solutions. METHODS: This paper presents a participatory action research project that traces the trajectory of a Community of Practice made up of seven occupational therapists working in primary health care and a researcher team, in Brazil. This study mapped the Community of Practice's trajectory between 2013 and 2017 through a group timeline analysis, which occurred gradually, in a collaborative mode. RESULTS: Three distinct phases in the trajectory of the development of the Community of Practice were identified: narrative perspectives were utilised as a means to identify dilemmas and difficulties in practice; the investigation of clients' needs and identification of issues was an ongoing process; and the generation of practice-based knowledge through the development of instruments to sustain clinical reasoning was a creative solution to practical dilemmas. CONCLUSION: Three main aspects were highlighted: the partnership between researchers and practitioners as a potential avenue for the production of knowledge relevant to professional practice; the negotiation of the dilemma of "putting practice into words" in the context of constantly changing local and global perspectives; and the investigation of situated practice as an important element that can strengthen, strain, resist or even modify hegemonic perspectives of knowledge production in our field.
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 | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".