Defining and refining emplacement by deepening the understanding of embeddedness, situatedness, and enactedness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a transactional frame of reference, this paper situates the concept of emplacement within and between the notions of embeddedness, situatedness, and enactedness. Emplacement recognises how the spaces and places in which we engage in occupations both shape and are shaped by engagement. Hence, the meaning and importance attributed to certain occupations can involve a complex, unbounded, uncertain, and often messy process. Further, embeddedness describes the deep anchoring of individuals to their social and physical contexts. Situatedness emphasises the importance of being ‘in-place’. Enactedness delves into the dynamic unfolding of occupations that highlight the role of agency and identity that are reflected in the stories shared. Vignettes from our research projects illustrate these concepts by offering insights into the lived experiences of emplacement. These narratives enrich understandings of the nuanced, transactional nature of emplacement. Additionally, we acknowledge the relevance of emplacement across contexts and suggest avenues for future research. This discussion adds to the existing understanding of emplacement and the growing body of knowledge in occupational science specific to the value of using a transactional frame of occupation to explore the complexities of human-occupation-environment interactions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it