Mobilizing Critical Occupational Therapy Praxis to Promote Structural Justice, Equity, and Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Formula: see text] Background. Societal structures and systems compel occupational therapists, at times, to behave in ways that perpetuate injustices. Justice theorists have described how Global North social structures have created the conditions for oppression of some groups while enabling additional groups to have unearned privileges. Mobilizing critical occupational therapy praxis is an essential response. Purpose. This lecture addresses three questions: why should occupational therapists integrate structural justice, equity, and rights into their everyday practices?; what gives occupational therapy the potential to be a structural justice-, equity-, and rights-oriented profession?; and, how can occupational therapy mobilize critical praxis that will promote structural justice, equity, and rights? Key issues. Occupational therapy's embeddedness in structures of injustice and therapists’ obligations to integrate justice, equity, and rights into their everyday practices are increasingly evident. A focus on occupational participation, growing critical consciousness, socially transformative practices, and capacity for collective action position occupational therapy to be a structural justice-oriented profession. Critical reflexivity and reflection; justice-, equity-, and rights-based lenses; and acts of resistance and disobedience to oppressive systems can help mobilize critical praxis. Implications. Occupational therapists have individual and collective opportunities for exercising the moral imagination and moral courage to mobilize critical occupational therapy praxis.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
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".