Unpacking occupational participation in the context of romantic partnerships: A scoping review
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
Background Romantic partnerships are characterized by deeply emotional and physical bonds often manifested through shared occupations. The concept of co-occupation highlights the interdependent and collaborative nature of such occupations. However, the question remains as to how co-occupation can be understood within the context of a romantic partnership. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and summarize how co-occupation involving romantic partners has been described within occupational science and occupational therapy literature.Methods A five-step scoping review framework identified relevant primary research from three databases: CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Pubmed. Studies had to include romantic partners, aged 18 years and older, and describe the occupational participation of both partners. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify and synthesize themes emerging from the findings and discussion sections across the studies.Results The search yielded 229 studies from databases and 3 from citation searching. Twenty met the inclusion criteria. Most studies involved heterosexual partners living in Western countries. The identified themes were: 1) ‘Doing together’: joint participation in co-occupations; 2) ‘Doing for each other’: singular participation in co-occupations; and 3) ‘Doing as one’: Navigating illness as reflected in co-occupations.Conclusions While the findings are limited to heterosexual relationships and English language literature, this review highlights how partners can experience shared meaning, intentionality, and physicality through their co-occupations. Further research is needed to explore how a sense of ‘we-ness’ can emerge from such occupational participation.
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 | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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