MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384450923 · doi:10.15453/2168-6408.2081

Spirituality and Occupation in Living (SOiL) Model: Conceptualizing Occupational Performance Through the lens of Spirituality

2023· article· en· W4384450923 on OpenAlexaff
Clark Patrick Heard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityOccupational therapyRelevance (law)PsychologyWorkplace spiritualityAestheticsPsychotherapistSocial psychologySociologyMedicinePolitical scienceAlternative medicinePsychiatryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spirituality is a multi-faceted concept that includes varied personal, societal, and cultural informers. Despite a relatively high volume of analysis there is significant and ongoing debate about the concept of spirituality in occupational therapy. In particular, this discourse includes questions of relevance, how spirituality might be defined, and what its clinical application might entail. To date, several models have connected spirituality with occupation but none have supported clinicians in framing occupational performance and occupational performance change in day-to-day clinical practice via a spirituality lens. This paper describes the Spirituality and Occupation in Living (SOiL) model. This model is designed for day-to-day clinical application in the consideration and analysis of occupational performance. It supports clinicians in partnering with clients, families, and caregivers in framing, analyzing, and respectfully discussing occupational performance through a spirituality lens. It is a model that can be responsive to multi-factorial informers across the care paradigm, is culturally accountable, and supports the integration of co-occupation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.480
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.071 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207