Building back better: Imagining an occupational therapy for a post‐COVID‐19 world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted occupations and lives of people around the world, has simultaneously exposed deeply rooted social inequities and structural injustices that have negated the facile claim that "we're all in this together." But the pandemic has also opened up opportunities to imagine other ways of living and doing in the future. This paper imagines some possibilities for shaping occupational therapy's future practices and seeks to illustrate why it is both timely and necessary to re-imagine occupational therapy in 2021. METHODS: Drawing from epidemiological research, the paper explores the inequitable impacts of COVID-19, environmental degradation, and multiple social determinants on people's real opportunities for health, wellbeing, and occupational engagement. FINDINGS: Evidence presented in this paper challenges occupational therapy's individualised approach towards wellbeing and contests the limited parameters of occupations "that matter" that are prioritised and promoted within the profession. In response, the paper seeks to expose the specific, political, economic, and ableist ideology that has effectively shaped the occupational therapy profession's assumptions, models, theories, and the practices these inform. CONCLUSION: Drawing from the "Build back better" approach to post-disaster recovery-with its dual attentions to wellbeing, equity, and inclusivity and to physical, social, cultural, economic, and environmental vulnerabilities-this paper imagines an occupational therapy for a post-COVID-19 world; an occupational therapy that takes seriously the premise that occupations and people are inseparable from their environments; a profession that no longer colludes in individualising problems that are inherently social or in depoliticising the systemic social and economic inequalities that create stress and illness; an occupational therapy that no longer promotes the values of neoliberal ableism; and an occupational therapy dedicated to expanding people's just and equitable opportunities to engage in meaningful occupations that contribute positively to their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of their communities.
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 | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".