A Citation Analysis of the Concept of Occupational Possibilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The concept of occupational possibilities has been integrated within guiding documents for Canadian occupational therapy to turn attention towards implicit and explicit root factors producing occupational inequities. Purpose. This mixed-methods citation analysis examined how the concept of occupational possibilities has been used in occupation-focused scholarship, attending to the knowledge generated and how its critical intents are enacted. Method. Peer-reviewed articles citing one or both of the two seminal publications regarding occupational possibilities were included. A descriptive analysis of 93 articles was conducted, along with a qualitative analysis of 43 articles that extensively integrated the concept. Findings. The concept of occupational possibilities has been increasingly used in scholarship since 2016 in ways that have deepened understanding of the discursive, systemic and structural forces perpetuating occupational inequities, and countered individualistic conceptualizations of occupational “choice.” This scholarship has identified key starting points for promoting equity through transforming occupational possibilities. Conclusion. There is an emerging body of knowledge that can inform reconfigurations of occupational therapy scholarship, education and practice in ways aligned with contemporary calls to counter occupational inequities through diversifying occupational possibilities, with such reconfigurations requiring sustained engagement in collective critical reflexivity to ensure disruption of oppressive power relations.
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 | 0.022 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.066 | 0.090 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".