Float to grow: nurturing the roots of socially inclusive and just practice in occupational therapy students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Models of practice and theoretical frameworks that seek to deemphasize impairment and focus on the implications of societal attitudes, norms, and culture are significant and relevant to the practice of occupational therapy. As an underpinning of client-centered practice, there is a need to highlight and embrace the intersection of impairment-deemphasizing theories and move from conceptual understanding to true application of those theoretical models in practice. This article describes the inclusion of the Salamander Workshop; an experiential learning activity designed to facilitate the development of students’ therapeutic self-awareness and initiate a starting point for incorporating social frameworks into authentic practice. Student reflections conceptualize the discussion about professional growth and development against the backdrop of disability experiences, social change, and empowerment. The article begins with an introduction to how the profession of occupational therapy and disability studies interconnect. This is followed by a description of both the occupational therapy education program where the experiential learning activity took place, and details of the workshop itself. The final two sections of the article articulate and discuss student reflections of the experiential learning exercise and conclude by framing the discussion within the larger context of occupational therapy pedagogy. The Salamander Workshop facilitated an opportunity for students to immerse themselves in the lived experience of others, while enhancing their own self-awareness, which in turn may translate to their growth and development as inclusive practitioners.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".