Acting as Change Agents: Insight Into Québec Occupational Therapists’ Current Practice: Actions menées à titre d’agents de changement : aperçu des pratiques actuelles parmi les ergothérapeutes du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Change agents' actions have been studied mainly from a theoretical perspective. PURPOSE.: This study aimed to empirically identify occupational therapists' actual change agent actions. METHOD.: As part of a research partnership with the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists-Québec chapter, we conducted this cross-sectional pilot study using an online survey. FINDINGS.: The change agent practices of our 103 participants involve many types of actions but show underinvestment in mass communication. Mass communication actions are more frequent when participants have greater experience, additional academic degrees, and training in change agency. Also, occupational therapists with additional academic degrees and change agency training tend to use a wider variety of actions. Finally, our participants' actions principally target actors in the clinical context, rarely political actors. IMPLICATIONS.: Our results suggest that occupational therapists can and will invest in the full range of change agent actions provided they can acquire the necessary knowledge and skills.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".