Focusing on “what matters”: the Occupation, Capability and Wellbeing Framework for Occupational Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Critical occupational therapists have challenged models from the Global North that have dominated occupational therapy and informed ableist practices focused on appraising dysfunctions, classifying deviations from bodily “norms”, and remedying individuals’ “deficits” in performing three occupations (self-care, productive, leisure). This indicated the need for a new conceptual framework; one grounded in research evidence derived from a diversity of people and contexts. Objectives To outline the imperative for, and genesis and features of an evidence-informed conceptual framework for occupational therapy, centred on occupations, capabilities and wellbeing. Methods This paper draws from the work of critical occupational therapists; outlining the conception and process of building a flexible framework by linking concepts identified through extensive review of multidisciplinary research from both the Global South and North. Results Building on evidence that occupation is a determinant of wellbeing, the Occupation, Capability and Wellbeing Framework for Occupational Therapy (OCWFOT, Hammell, 2020a) encourages a strengths-based approach to occupational therapy: assessing and building on individual, collective and community assets, abilities and resources; focusing on occupations that “matter most”; and fostering a relational view of people as interdependent and embedded within families and communities. Conclusion Focused unequivocally on the wellbeing needs and aspirations of individuals, families, groups, communities and populations that are met or unmet by current patterns of occupational engagement; on both abilities and opportunities; and on occupation as a human right, the OCWFOT is theoretically defensible, provides conceptual clarity, and has utility as an evidence-informed structure around which future research and practices may be oriented.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".