Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Cultural humility is increasingly embraced as a theoretical lens that occupational therapists, educators, and researchers can use to promote justice and inclusion in diverse contexts. Cultural humility differs from cultural competence in its recognition of power and bias and its invitation to embrace advocacy and lifelong learning. Key Issues. Occupational therapy scholarship on cultural humility neither confronts the profound challenges of putting cultural humility into practice nor articulates strategies to integrate cultural humility into daily life and work. These challenges, including perceived objectivity, difficulty identifying power structures, and emotional responses to difference, are particularly salient when belief systems are in clear opposition. In such situations enacting cultural humility requires intellectual, emotional, relational, and community building strategy and skill. Implications. To support development of such skills, conceptual practices are outlined here with a focus on uprooting biases, building self-compassion, identifying multiple, co-occurring dimensions of power, and supporting development of collaborative advocacy vision and strategy. This work offers both theoretical and practical knowledge to advance cultural humility praxis in occupational therapy.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".