“Everyone knows there is a battle”: Colleges, Universities, and the Education of Occupational Therapists in Ontario, 1970 to 1985
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the creation of Ontario’s Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology (CAATs) in 1965, an interested group of health care providers and educators in Hamilton began to advocate for the creation of a program in occupational therapy at Mohawk College. Historically, occupational therapy education in Canada took place within universities, so a college-based program was viewed as a significant development by the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (CAOT) and its provincial branches. The idea of the Mohawk program was developed concurrently with the work of Ontario’s Healing Arts Committee, which put forward more than two hundred recommendations that would reshape the education of health care workers. These two elements, the development of an occupational therapy program within a CAAT and a major review of education for health care workers, were viewed with concern by the CAOT. This paper analyzes the history of this educational development and the response of the profession of occupational therapy. It illustrates the strategies used by the CAOT, and the Ontario Society of Occupational Therapists, to delay the implementation of the program. The paper also illustrates the development of minimum standards for entry to practice, accreditation policies for education programs, and membership requirements for the CAOT, all of which were connected to employment prospects. All of this had implications for the viability of the Mohawk College program and for its graduates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".