Generative Disruptive Questions: Operationalizing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Justice, and Accessibility in Occupational Therapy Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diversity, equity, and inclusion is one of five pillars upholding the American Occupational Therapy Association’s (AOTA) strategic plan. Ensuring organizational, educational and governance structures, policies, programs, and services all reflect diversity, equity, inclusion, justice and accessibility (DEIJA) is a priority for the profession. Yet, addressing DEIJA remains a significant challenge in the occupational therapy academic community. Educational programs are a gateway to the profession and play a critical role in whether minoritized persons feel they belong in occupational therapy. This paper proposes a set of Generative Disruptive Questions (GDQ) that can be used to critically examine practices within education that reflect commitment and action towards DEIJA and to facilitate focused conversations that accelerate the creation of measurable, action steps that ensure DEIJA practices are effectively addressed within occupational therapy educational programs. These questions are intended to foster authentic reflection and brave discussions that will dismantle processes and practices that perpetuate systemic injustices. These conversation starters could help faculty, staff and learners engage in courageous conversations that may, at times, be challenging, but which can lead to transformative changes. The questions promote reflective analysis of DEIJA in multiple aspects of the educational process from examination of vision and mission and DEIJA processes and practices in the broad institutional context to more focused analysis of the culture, climate, recruitment, retention, and teaching practices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".