Bibliographic record
Abstract
We at the Ontario Society of Occupational Therapists (osot) are delighted and honoured to offer a foreword to this important new book, a work that contributes comprehensive and uniquely Canadian perspectives to existing historical accounts of occupational therapy.Judith Friedland, the author, is superbly qualified to describe the conditions, the beliefs, and the personal commitments that gave rise to our profession.This year, 2011, marks several "birthdays" for the profession of occupational therapy in Canada.Both the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (caot) and the Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy at the University of Toronto turn eighty-five.Our own association, osot, is celebrating a vibrant ninety years of active service to our members with a commitment to "Honouring Our Past -Advancing Our Future."But our past has been sparsely documented and often obscured by more dominant histories.This book serves to close that knowledge gap by providing the first comprehensive history of the early decades of occupational therapy in Canada.Only with this knowledge and from these perspectives can we confidently and proactively plan for our profession's future.Writing a book is no small undertaking, but the task is even more challenging for a book such as this, which required many hundreds of hours of sifting through the literature and archival records.Others have previously attempted to compile this history, and Judith benefited from their work.Her achievement is to be lauded, and we are indebted to her for her determination, passion, and tenacity in making this text available to all of us.Of course, Judith is accomplished both inside and outside the world of occupational therapy, and we would be remiss not to highlight a few of her contributions and accomplishments.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.572 | 0.468 |
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".