How is resilience conceptualized and operationalized in occupational therapy and occupational science literature? Protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Resilience is a commonly discussed term describing the ability to overcome, adapt to, or cope with stressful/disruptive events. Although researchers and practitioners define resilience in diverse ways – e.g., psychological or disaster resilience – the concept fundamentally encompasses perseverance through adversity. As experts in the interplay between individuals, environments, and occupations, occupational therapists and occupational scientists have great potential to understand and enable resilience, with some similar concepts appearing in occupational theories (e.g., occupational adaptation). However, there are no published reviews of resilience in the occupation-focused literature. Objective We will explore how resilience is conceptualized and operationalized in the occupational therapy and occupational science research literature. Method Guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology, we will search library databases and other sources for relevant records. Two team members will screen records for inclusion, with discrepancies settled by a third person. We will include English-language literature (including research papers, editorials, dissertations, etc.) published since 1990 which 1) contains the word root ‘resilien*’ and 2) is occupation focused, according to our criteria (occupational therapist/occupational scientist co-authors or research participants; and/or published in occupation-focused periodical). We will report key information of included literature, such as methodology and resilience theories discussed. Results Our study is ongoing at the time of publication; this manuscript reports its protocol without results. Conclusion Findings will be useful for clinicians and researchers looking for occupational conceptualizations of resilience. From a social justice perspective, our review may highlight evidence that occupational engagement can foster resilience among marginalized communities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".