(Re)defining recreation: a call for reconciliatory action in therapeutic recreation practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Therapeutic recreation (TR) professionals have the potential to support meaningful change and the development of well-being in clients’ lives; however, there is a gap in the role TR has played or could play in and with Indigenous communities. Despite the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 2015 report and its associated Calls to Action, TR approaches typically fail to acknowledge Indigenous conceptualizations, definitions, and practices of leisure. This gap furthers exclusionary policies of colonialism, reinforces historically imbalanced power relationships, and it pathologizes Indigenous peoples’ well-being. In this paper, I make myself vulnerable by sharing personal experiences in practice as a cautionary tale to colleagues to challenge ongoing calls for cultural competence in therapeutic recreation practice and argue the need for acts of reconciliation to go beyond hollow acts of symbolism and to instead become transformative action.
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 | 0.065 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.130 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".