The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM): Critiquing its Applicability With Indigenous Peoples and Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous Peoples experience significant health inequities that must be understood in relation to historical and ongoing colonialism, racism, and discrimination. The occupational therapy profession has claimed commitment to addressing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) calls to action, however, the profession is firmly grounded in Euro-Western epistemologies, including its assessments. The purpose of this paper was to assess the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) for use with Indigenous clients and communities. Although the COPM uses flexibility through semi-structured interviews and the exclusion of standardized score comparisons, it is mired in colonial underpinnings and has hierarchical therapist-client power dynamics threaded throughout. The COPM has potential given its semi-structured nature and client-led approach. However, acknowledgement of the assessments’ Euro-Western roots and biases are necessary. This assessment may be modified for improved use, which should occur in collaboration with Indigenous clients, communities, and leaders.
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 | 0.108 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 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".