Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence for occupational therapy practice has increased exponentially over the last 25 years. Whilst this is excellent news for the delivery of occupational therapy in evidencebased driven health care systems, it remains woeful that we still have no established career structure that fully embraces research as part of our professional development. Despite the lack of such structures there are multiple examples of innovation and success worldwide. Using the example of stroke rehabilitation I hope to illustrate the development of a research culture in occupational therapy that has had national impact and global reach. The growth of capacity and capability within occupational therapy research in the UK, Australia and Canada has been key to such success. I also hope to demonstrate that this success has mainly progressed not by occupational therapy organisations but by mentorship from other professional groupings and indeed from the occupational therapy research pioneers who have been brave enough to charter new territories. Many academic research groupings are now of an age where we no longer need to prove ourselves as research 'savvy', but we do need to ensure that our professional organisations and clinical services raise their game to fully embrace research in all its forms. To achieve this we must ensure that we provide high quality research training at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, that research is valued in the workplace, that our research produces robust findings worthy of publications in high impact journals and that we acknowledge that research qualifications, like our medical colleagues, are something that should be mandatory in our professional career structures. There is much that we can do and we each must play our part in ensuring that the profession of occupational therapy goes from strength to strength. To pay lip service to research is to wave goodbye to our profession!
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".