How has the philosophy of pragmatism been addressed in occupational therapy and occupational science? Protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The Philosophy of Pragmatism has been recognized for its importance in the initial development of occupational therapy in the early twentieth century in the United States. This perspective has regained attention as an approach that is fruitful for understanding contemporary challenges in the field. Despite this renewed interest, there are no review studies that examine the affordances of pragmatism in the occupational therapy and occupational science peer-review literature. Objective To present the scoping review protocol. Method The protocol was developed guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Results This protocol presents a comprehensive plan to conduct the scoping review. The study aim is to identify the state of knowledge about how the philosophy of pragmatism has been addressed in occupational therapy and occupational science in peer-reviewed literature in the past ten years, specifying subquestions. The inclusion criteria encompasses English, Spanish and Portuguese peer-reviewed literature (conceptual and research studies), with any population and in any physical, geographic, field of practice, and cultural context. The protocol presents the collaborative team strategy for searching databases (PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, MedLine, and Embase) and for selection of papers. Data extraction will include key information from the papers presented in an evidence table. The use of pragmatism in theoretical and methodological aspects will be extracted from the papers, and thematically analyzed. Conclusion We inform the research community about our intentions to understand the repercussions of pragmatism in occupational therapy and occupational science by making publicly available the comprehensive plan for conducting the study.
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 | 0.197 | 0.248 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.014 |
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".