Embracing Moss Bag Nurturance: A Step Towards Decolonizing Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Occupational therapy (OT), a profession deeply entrenched in colonial ideologies, also holds the potential to re-imagine healthcare in collaboration with Indigenous communities. Purpose. This review aims to (1) identify decolonizing practices in OT that can be applied at micro, meso, and macro levels of service delivery and (2) elevate the voices and viewpoints of Indigenous scholars. Method. I conducted a literature review based on a decolonized and relationship-focused approach, using the work of Tynan and Bishop. Seventeen articles were reviewed and guided by moss bag teachings. Findings. By encouraging actions people can do to enact decolonization practices, we hope that non-Indigenous people can critically think about ways in which to challenge coloniality and enact meaningful, relational, and respectful relationships. (1) micro: Before building relationships, occupational therapists need to understand their work environment to create meaningful connections and improve service delivery. (2) meso: occupational therapists in leadership should support Indigenous occupational therapists and fairly compensate them to respect Indigenous knowledge genuinely. (3) macro: occupational therapists involved in creating knowledge must recognize and promote Indigenous knowledge to benefit Indigenous OT students and communities. This paper is not meant to be a prescriptive “what not to do” as this varies across each unique situation. Conclusion. Effective actions must be implemented at all levels of service provision, recognizing that all clinicians, researchers, and educators are urged to transform and challenge the normative and colonial status quo ingrained in the OT profession.
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 | 0.035 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".