The Concept of Oppression and Occupational Therapy: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Occupational therapy and occupational science literature include growing attention to issues of justice, marginalization, and rights. In contrast, the concept of oppression has scarcely been employed. Purpose. This paper investigates how adding the concept of oppression may enhance occupational therapy approaches to injustice, prioritizing a focus on structural causes, and facilitating conscientious action. Method. A critical interpretive synthesis explored insights from authors who name oppressions in occupational therapy and occupational science literature. In total, a sample of 28 papers addressing oppression, ableism, ageism, classism, colonialism, heterosexism, racism, and/or sexism was selected for inclusion. Findings. Four themes were identified: oppression and everyday doing; effects of structures and power; responding and resisting; and oppression within occupational therapy. Implications. Incorporating oppression within the plurality of social discourse may help occupational therapists to avoid individualistic explanations, attend to relationships between social structures and constrained occupations, frame intersectional analysis, and engage in praxis.
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 | 0.064 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".