Children's Play–Work Occupation Continuum: Play-Based Occupational Therapy, Play Therapy and Playwork
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Occupational therapists often use play-based approaches to facilitate children's occupational development and promote participation, for example, play-based occupational therapy, play therapy and playwork. However, where does play occupation fit, within these adult-guided play-based approaches in occupational therapy? Purpose: To examine and discuss the play–work occupation continuum of children to inform occupational therapy practice. Key Issues: Children's play occupations are free-selected, unstructured, internally-controlled, spontaneous and intrinsically-motivated. Yet, occupational therapists often utilize play as a therapeutic modality to support occupational development for occupations other than play. This use of play represents play-based work occupations as they are structured, externally-controlled, adult-guided, goal-focused and extrinsically-motivated. Play occupations then move from being authentic free-play to adult-guided play-based work occupations for children. Implications: When working with children and families, occupational therapists need to balance the use of self-selected, unstructured play occupations with the application of adult-guided, structured, goal-focused play-based work occupations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".