International community of practice: learning from experiences of community development and social occupational therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Increasingly, occupational therapists and scientists across the globe are calling for a shift away from individualised western medical approaches, to working with communities and collectives, and in the social field. This signals the growing motivation to engage in socially responsive and transformative practices that address political structures and oppressive colonial systems. Objective The purpose of our Community of Practice (CoP) was to explore and describe the epistemologies, vocabularies, and understandings that underpin community development and social occupational therapy within diverse global contexts to advance theoretical perspectives and practices. Method As a CoP of occupational therapy and science scholars situated in four countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, and South Africa), we met virtually bi-monthly from March 2020 to January 2023. Scholarly work involved critical narrative literature reviews, reflexive presentations, group dialogues, and individual and collective reflections and analyses. Results Individual narratives, four thematic threads, and a selection of vocabularies and epistemologies are presented. The thematic threads were: Connecting and making space for decolonial praxis, Questioning the disconnect between occupational therapy practice and contexts, Examining vocabularies that shape contextually relevant practice, and Engaging a reflexive stance to work towards equity, justice and social rights. Conclusions Generating knowledge that supports ways of knowing, being and doing reflective of multiple languages, sciences, and contexts will strengthen occupational therapy. Maintaining the pluriversal and resisting ‘one size fits all’ approaches to human occupation/everyday life is essential. This paper offers practitioners a catalyst for initiating decolonising praxis for learning across global contexts.
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 | 0.032 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".