Platinum anniversary – 70 years of highlights and influences of the World Federation of Occupational Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Federation of Occupational Therapists (WFOT) was inaugurated in 1952 (Paterson, C. F. (1994). The First International Congress of the World Federation of Occupational Therapists—Edinburgh, 1954. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(4), 116–120) and celebrates its 70th anniversary in 2022. The last 70 years have seen the growth and development of occupational therapy globally, with WFOT growing from 10 to 105 member organisations. While the important core principle of occupational activity (occupations) in our daily lives has remained constant in those 70 years, the approach, and how we do them has changed. As occupational therapists we have continued to adapt and change to meet the needs of the societies and cultures in which we work. The primary aim of this paper is to share some of the major highlights of the past 70 years, outlining the influences as reflected in the ongoing business of WFOT.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.014 |
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".