What is Professionalism in Occupational Therapy? A Concept Analysis: Qu’est-ce que le professionnalisme en ergothérapie? Analyse de ce concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Professionalism has been given different definitions over time. These are, commonly theoretical and difficult to operationalize. PURPOSE.: This study aimed to provide an operational definition of the concept of professionalism in occupational therapy. METHOD.: Based on a concept analysis design, a meta-narrative review was conducted to extract information from 30 occupational therapy manuscripts. FINDINGS.: Professionalism is a complex competence defined by the manifestation of distinct attitudes and behaviours that support excellence in the occupational therapy practice. In addition, professionalism is forged and evolves according to personal and environmental characteristics. The manifestation of professionalism can lead to positive consequences for occupational therapists, clients, and the discipline, notably contributing to a positive and strong professional identity. Moreover, professionalism is also subject to cultural influences, which leads to variations in its development, manifestations, and consequences. IMPLICATIONS.: This study offers a contemporary operational definition of professionalism and levers to promote its development and maintenance.
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 | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".