Every parent matters: The value of a parent-centric approach to supporting parenting occupations and roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parenting is an important and valued occupational role. Occupational science conceptualises parenting as ‘co-occupation’ – a ‘dance between the occupations of one individual and another that sequentially shapes the occupations of both persons’. Parenting practices impact both the individual child and communities at large, as parents are tasked with preparing children to contribute positively to society. Despite this, occupational therapy practice as it relates to parenting is poorly understood and is often confined to a child-centric approach, with the child as the focus of intervention and the parent viewed as a partner in therapy or a critical part of the child’s ecological ‘context’. This approach is appropriate in paediatric practice but allows limited recognition of the importance of parenting as a distinct role and occupation. This is significant because many parents experience difficulties and disparities in performing parenting occupations and roles and would like occupational therapists to address these concerns. The purpose of this paper is to raise awareness of the potential of a parent-centric approach to parenting in occupational therapy and to identify key challenges and opportunities for the profession when working with parents.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".