MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412484678 · doi:10.15453/2168-6408.2458

Letter to the Editor: Embedding Indigenous Knowledges in Occupational Therapy: ‘Nothing about us without us.’

2025· letter· en· W4412484678 on OpenAlexaff
Chontel Gibson, Isla Emery‐Whittington, LaVonne Fox, Tirritpa Ritchie, Kaarina Valavaara, Angela Phenix, Tara Pride

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2025
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational therapyNothingIndigenousMedicinePsychologyPsychoanalysisPhysical therapyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a collective of Indigenous occupational therapists, we write this letter not only in response to McColl et al.'s (2024) Letter to the Editor, but as a call to action for the profession, to enhance its ability to apply decoloniality and Indigenous human rights via strengths-based approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0350.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.220
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207