Toward a Conceptual Framework for Occupational Therapist-Teacher Collaborations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Occupational therapists and teachers often collaborate for the benefit of students. Purpose. This work aims to develop a conceptual framework for collaboration between occupational therapists and teachers in a school-based setting. Methods. A multiple method, qualitative methodology was employed. An integrative analysis of findings between a scoping review and interviews of occupational therapists (n = 5), teachers (n = 5), and parents of students receiving school-based occupational therapy (n = 3) was conducted to develop a conceptual model. Findings. The conceptual framework describes the enabling factors and tensions in collaboration while emphasizing the centrality of both trust and co-equal status between collaborating occupational therapists and teachers. Implications. This conceptual framework may be used to better understand collaboration between occupational therapists and teachers and may be used to inform policy on school-based occupational therapy.
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 | 0.055 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".