Supporting Sustainability: A Philosophical Analysis of Certain Assumptions Underlying Occupational Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The relevance of supporting sustainability within occupational therapy is increasingly demonstrated and argued for. However, difficulties persist in supporting sustainability in practice, which presents occupational therapists with an occupational paradox. Why is sustainability still so difficult to include into occupational therapy practice? Purpose: The objective was to analyse certain assumptions underlying the profession that may constitute potential obstacles to the inclusion of sustainability in practice. Method: To identify and critically examine these assumptions, a philosophical analysis of five key concepts of the profession was carried out based on a triangulation of two philosophical methods. Findings: The results reveal that the five concepts analysed—person, occupation, environment, health, and justice—may act as barriers to support sustainability within the practice. Conclusion: A paradigm shift is therefore relevant, even necessary in the current climate emergency to mitigate its impacts. This is especially relevant as the climate crisis poses the greatest threat to health and endangers the ability of humans to engage in occupations essential for well-being and survival.
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 | 0.062 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.122 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| 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".