MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3063996960 · doi:10.1080/14427591.2020.1799847

Innocent observers? Discursive choices and the construction of “occupation”

2020· article· en· W3063996960 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivilege (computing)SociologyConstructiveOccupational scienceEpistemologyPsychologyProcess (computing)Political scienceOccupational therapyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As scholars engaged in processes of knowledge production and knowledge sharing, occupational scientists are afforded a degree of social privilege, authority, and legitimacy and are therefore accountable for the ways in which constructs of occupation are produced. As the concept of ‘occupation’ broadens to encompass a wider range of lived experiences, an opportunity to critically reflect on how discursive choices shape epistemic knowledges is presented. This paper begins with an overview of contemporary, evolving conceptualisations of occupation, followed by discussions about the constructive potential of discourses and considerations for writing and talking about occupation and people who engage in occupation. It is not intended as a summative review; rather, it is a continuation of conversations within occupational science.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.336 · 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