Knowledge Gaps Regarding Indigenous Health in Occupational Therapy: A Delphi Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The occupational therapy profession needs to respond to the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to engage in the process of reconciliation with Indigenous populations. Purpose. To inform development of a survey intended to determine the knowledge gaps of occupational therapists in relation to Indigenous health. Method. A Delphi process engaging 18 occupational therapists with membership in an Indigenous health network was used to prioritize and refine potential themes identified via literature review. Findings. Results of three consensus rounds and Dunn-Bonferroni post-hoc testing demonstrated three statistically distinct hierarchical tiers of 10 priority themes to inform survey development. Implications. The consensus prioritized themes from the literature to underpin further research on occupational therapists’ knowledge in relation to Indigenous health and can provide a learning scaffold for occupational therapists to support a continued response to the TRC calls to action.
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 | 0.177 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".