Making Choices from the Choices we have: The Contextual-Embeddedness of Occupational Choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: "Choice" is central to occupational therapy's theoretical tradition, which maintains that individuals can impact their well-being through wisely choosing their occupations. However, the assumption that opportunities to choose are universally available is negated by research evidence. PURPOSE.: To review the ideology of "choice" in occupational therapy theory, and to encourage more critical approaches toward determinants of occupational opportunity and choice. KEY ISSUES.: Evidence indicates that within Canada, and throughout the world, opportunities to make occupational choices are inequitably distributed among people of different socioeconomic classes, castes, genders, races, abilities, sexualities, citizenship statuses, and experiences of colonialism. IMPLICATIONS.: Because occupation is a determinant of health and well-being, social injustices that create inequitable occupational choices are unfair violations of occupational rights. The occupational therapy profession's espoused aim of enhancing well-being through occupation demands theories that explicitly recognize the socially structured and inequitable shaping of choice, and consequent impact on people's occupational rights.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".