An Occupational Perspective of Occupational Therapy and the Medical Hegemony System in Malaysia—Exploration for Further Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational Therapy is critically underdeveloped in many developing countries in Asia. There are many internal and external barriers to the growth of the profession, including lack of willpower and lack of professional representation in the government. This article aims to communicate the postulations for its stagnation across developing countries in Asia. An analytical reflection and historical review of the barriers to the growth of occupational therapy in Malaysia was conducted. Leaders in the field who met the inclusion criteria, collaborated to shape the reconstructions using an occupational reconstruction approach. The reconstruction guided key critical reflections on the roots of daily experiences to relive the cooperative action to problem solve the issues encountered by the profession in Malaysia. Medical hegemony was found as the active suppressor of the health professions, and can be seen as being beyond reproach in the Asian’s medical model that created occupational injustices. These occupational injustices hinder the growth of Occupational Therapy, do not serve the patients, science or the overall healthcare system. Autocratic governance has a debilitating impact on health sciences and its workforce especially around badly oppressed Asian countries. A greater systematic approach is needed to examine the extent, effect, problem solve and remediate the magnitude of injustices over the last decade—to make way for an inclusive and affordable care system.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".