MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W36144843 · doi:10.3390/molecules27186108

The Canadian Model of Client-Centred Enablement: Reflections from diverse occupational therapy practitioners

2007· article· en· W36144843 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robin Stadnyk, Jill Phillips, Slavko Sapeta, Alison MacAulay, Margaret Champion, Linna Tam, Janet Craik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHigher Education Commission Mauritius
KeywordsTownsendOccupational therapyMetaphorSet (abstract data type)PsychologyPsychotherapistMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is the third of a series of articles that in-troduces new models and concepts presented in the latest set of Canadian occupational therapy guidelines entitled, Enabling Occupation II: Advancing Occupa-tional Vision for Health, Well-Being and Justice through Occupation (Townsend & Polatajko, 2007).In Enabling Occupation II, the Canadian Model of Client-Centred Enablement (CMCE) is presented. This model is “a visual metaphor for client-centred enable-ment” (see Figure 4.3) (Townsend et al., 2007, p. 109) and depicts the relationship between therapist and client, as well as an array of enablement skills used in therapeutic relationships. Chapter four of Enabling Oc-cupation II describes how the CMCE, “embraces enable-ment as the core competency of occupational therapy” (Townsend et al., p. 109). The chapter is exciting to read because it makes explicit the ideas about enablement that have implicitly guided occupational therapy prac-tice for years. The CMCE displays ‘what’ occupational therapists ‘do’ with their clients who may be individual, families, groups, communities, organizations or popu-lations. Furthermore the CMCE defines a spectrum of enablement skills that include the actions of adapt, ad-vocate, coach, collaborate, consult, coordinate, design/build, educate, engage and specialize as the key skills for client-centred, occupation-based enablement. A fascinating idea portrayed in the CMCE is that enablement may fall on a continuum. While we would wish for all enablement to be effective, there are a “continuum of possibilities from ineffective to effective enablement” (Townsend et al., p. 128). Four decision-making points for the enablement continuum have been established and include; ineffective enablement, missed enablement, minimal enablement and effective enablement (see Figure 4.4). The text encourages us to critically reflect on enablement, recognizing that “com-plex practice conditions as well as therapist choices determine possibilities for enablement” (Townsend et al., p. 130). Last fall, the CMCE and the enablement continuum was discussed with a group of occupational therapists with diverse practice backgrounds. These 15 thera-pists were participants in a distance-education theory course at Dalhousie University’s School of Occupational Therapy. Here are some of the comments they made in their on-line discussion. *****

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0190.023
Scholarly communication0.0200.014
Open science0.0060.018
Research integrity0.0090.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.401
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.126 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207