Profiling the Research Activities of Canadian Occupational Therapy and Occupational Science Faculty Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. There is a lack of knowledge on the scope and nature of the research by faculty members in occupational science (OS) and/or occupational therapy (OT) programs in Canada. Purpose. To describe the research activities of faculty members in these programs and directions. Method. A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 173 faculty members across all 14 Canadian OT that addressed: 1) research topics and methods, 2) populations, and 3) funding. Findings. Based on respondents ( N = 121), research is focused on a range of topics and populations with most conducting qualitative research. Many conduct research examining the effectiveness of interventions, with few respondents focused on OS research. Federal and provincial grants agencies were the largest source of funding. Implications. Research topics studied were not always proportional to practice although emerging areas were being investigated that can expand the evidence base and scope of practice. Despite limited occupation-specific funding options, respondents were accessing funding from varied sources. Collaborations among faculty members, clinicians, and individuals with lived experience can create priorities for future OS and/or OT research in Canada.
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 | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".