Collective reflections to create knowledge spaces: Thinking about an inclusive, diverse, and participatory occupational science
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first World Occupational Science Conference took place in Vancouver, Canada, in August 2022. As English was the official language of the event, this brought challenges for some non-anglophone participants, including some of the authors of this paper. In response, the authors gathered to support translation and communication efforts during the event. This strengthened mutual support and led to the establishment of a workgroup to reflect on knowledge production within occupational science. Framed within a call to expand the discipline beyond the English-speaking world and from a Portuguese-Spanish context, our objectives were to (i) share joint reflections on the potential barriers to participation in scientific events; and (ii) recommend options to democratize knowledge in academic events to develop a more inclusive, diverse, and participatory occupational science. This work could contribute to the creation of spaces for inclusive knowledge to engage more people in occupational science and therefore open opportunities for a more nuanced and diverse understanding of occupation.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it