A Critical Reflexion on Two Conceptual Tools From a Global South Perspective: Réflexion critique sur deux outils conceptuels selon la perspective des pays du sud
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Occupational therapy's conceptual tools need to be considered from Global South perspectives to make them more culturally relevant and safe. PURPOSE.: This paper uses an empirical example, and the author's professional and academic experiences, to analyze the strengths, limitations, and potential refinement of the Critical Thinking Tool (CTT) and the Participatory Occupational Justice Framework (POJF). KEY ISSUES.: The paper describes processes of critical reflexivity and intercultural translation to compare concepts used in the CTT and POJF with the findings of a study about olive growing in Palestine to consider the applicability of these tools in Global South settings. The CTT should be amended to address collective occupations, and global and historical contexts, and the POJF should embed intercultural translations and solidarity into its philosophy and processes. IMPLICATIONS.: These refinements would enhance the cultural safety of the CTT and the POJF. Tools in occupational therapy will benefit from more evidence to enhance their global utility in an increasingly interconnected world, in which occupational therapists share the duty to tackle social and occupational injustices.
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 | 0.050 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".