(Re)making ‘third places’ in precarious times: Conceptual, empirical, and practical opportunities for occupational science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Occupational science scholarship has long recognized the relationship of person, occupation, and context, with less focus on the role of occupation in placemaking.Inquiries about 'third places' beyond home and work can develop knowledge about how occupations help (re)create and maintain places; such knowledge is especially relevant for understanding how people navigate precarious social and economic conditions.Methods: Through a 5-step scoping review, we surveyed the state of knowledge about 'third places' and the roles they play in the lives of precariously employed individuals.Our review covered English-language literature published between 2012 and 2022 that was indexed in eight academic journal databases.We descriptively and thematically analyzed 24 multidisciplinary articles.Findings: Included articles were concentrated among relatively few disciplinary, geographical, and methodological bases.Within these studies, situations of financial precarity and social exclusion prompted precarious workers to access and create alternative physical and virtual third places; these third places were characterized by having low barriers to entry, affording diverse forms of participation, and engendering few obligations or commitments.Occupations occurring through these places played a central role in placemaking and reflected the multifaceted purposes of third places and the diverse needs experienced within precarious lives.Implications: These findings support the need to reconceptualize 'third places' in ways that attend to occupation and foreground inclusionary and exclusionary potentials.Further research on third places can extend occupational science theorization of dynamic person-occupation-place relationships and advance interdisciplinary social transformation efforts through occupation-based community development work.
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 | 0.025 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".