The Nature of Theory Used in Practice Education: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Placements are key contexts for occupational therapy students to connect theoretical knowledge (theory) with practice. Theory relates to the prevailing ideas and concepts used by a profession. It can be derived within and outside the profession (discipline-specific knowledge and related knowledge, respectively). Purpose. This scoping review aimed to identify what is known about the nature of theoretical knowledge used in occupational therapy practice education. Method. A search of 4 electronic databases identified 19 relevant publications, data from which was extracted deductively. Findings. Inconsistent descriptions related to discipline-specific knowledge while related knowledge was often presented as not integrated with, or complementing, discipline-specific knowledge. Some authors referred to educational knowledge and methods informing student's theory use during placements. Implications. Educational methods need to provide a foundational platform, enabling novice learners to structure their thinking about ways discipline-specific and related knowledge can be used within an occupational framework on placement.
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 | 0.040 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".