Shame – Rupture – Becoming: Resisting complicity in oppression in occupational science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shame, a deeply unsettling affect, influences many aspects of daily life and occupations. In this paper, we propose that shame can drive socially transformative scholarship in occupational science. We use Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts of ‘minor’ and ‘major’ to explain how shame appears in power relations. Minor shame is experienced by marginalized groups (disabled, Indigenous, psychiatrized, queer, racialized, etc.), who often lack status or recognition. Major shame occurs when individuals recognize their complicity in oppression, seeing themselves as similar to those who dominate and harm others. This realization can cause a rupture, either leading to social inertia, silence, and isolation, or provoking a ‘becoming’—a process of connecting with others and fostering a desire for social change. An occupational perspective shows how human-caused atrocities must be collectively resisted through embodied experiences. Mobilizing affects like major shame can support the development of equity and justice work in occupational science. As a field rooted in settler colonialism, occupational science has a responsibility to address its complicity in these matters.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.087 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".