Alliances between social occupational therapy and critical occupational science: Propositions to mobilize social justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Committed to the necessity of international dialogues in occupational therapy and occupational science, we have developed a proposal for alliance between social occupational therapy and critical occupational science based on a series of theoretical dialogues between Brazilian and Canadian researchers. Through these dialogues, we have aimed to understand and propose contributions that articulate the shared intent of social transformation enhancing social justice of these disciplines. While acknowledging points of difference, we propose an alliance based on points of convergence, including emergence from concerns related to justice and equity; development coming from the ‘margins’; mobilization of critical social theory to orient knowledge production and question power relations within and outside the discipline and the profession; and an intent to work towards social justice, especially with marginalized groups. Our key arguments are informed by theoretical concepts from three authors: Judith Butler’s conceptualizations of vulnerability, precarity, and alliance; Nancy Fraser’s propositions regarding social justice; and Paulo Freire’s concept of dialogue. Through dialogue that recognizes and respects different knowledges and practices, an alliance is produced toward social justice, one that aims to realize more complex theoretical and practical resources for critical thinking about social reality. In turn, possibilities for apprehending how different oppressions impact and influence the possibilities of living can be expanded, informing approaches to building inhabitable worlds and proposing practices of freedom with persons and communities facing oppression.
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 | 0.083 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.189 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.043 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| 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".