Indigenous Peoples and Occupational Therapy in Canada: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Calls to Action outlined by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) necessitate critical reflection and urgent action to improve occupational therapy with Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Purpose. This scoping review aims to synthesize the literature related to Indigenous Peoples and occupational therapy practice, research, and education in Canada, and appraise empirical research using adapted Indigenous Health Research criteria. Method. A scoping review was conducted across published academic and grey literature with additional appraisal of empirical studies. Findings. A total of 6 themes emerged from 47 articles spanning from 1970 to 2020: recognizing colonial history, responding to the TRC, participating in personal and professional reflection, identifying Western ideologies, engaging in partnership in practice, and recognizing social and systemic barriers. Empirical studies met appraisal criteria inconsistently. Implications. To meaningfully engage in reconciliation, the profession of occupational therapy must generate Indigenous-led and relevant research, critically transform curricula, and address tensions between themes in practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 teacher head, 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".