Exploring professional theories, models, and frameworks for justice-oriented constructs: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The role of systemic marginalization in negatively impacting the health and wellbeing of individuals and populations is well-established. Although the profession has begun to address the impact of colonialism in clinical and educational contexts, these topics are less represented in the underpinning theories, models, and frameworks that guide research, practice, and education. Objective To identify and analyze peer-reviewed journal articles about professional theories, models, and frameworks describing justice-oriented constructs. Method We searched for journal articles published between 1971 and 2021 as indexed in PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We used the Levac et al. methodology and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews extension (PRISMA-ScR) and the JBI Scoping Review Network. Included articles featured theories, models, frameworks that described justice-oriented constructs. Results Forty-five articles published from 1987 to 2021 met inclusion criteria. These included 19 models, 19 frameworks, five theories, and two paradigms. The majority of articles originated in Canada, the United States, and Australia and within the past 20 years. The most commonly described constructs were inclusion, culture, and occupational justice. Conclusion This scoping review provides an overview of publications describing theories, models, and frameworks in occupational therapy literature that include justice-oriented constructs. Although justice-oriented constructs were the central topic in 35 articles, the context was not explicitly connected to professional activity. Only seven articles discussed research, which reveals a major concern considering its foundational role in the profession.
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 | 0.093 | 0.240 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.058 | 0.045 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".