Exploring the Mental Health Roots of Occupational Therapy in Canada: A Historical Review of Primary Texts from 1925-1950
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This historical study focused on understanding the influence of mental health concepts and practices on the profession of occupational therapy in Canada during the first part of the 20th century. METHODS: The authors examined early editions of the Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy (CJOT) and other primary works from 1925-1950 to identify key events and themes. RESULTS: Analysis of these key historical documents revealed four themes: (1) Idle hands, emotional mischief, social unrest; (2) The grand vision; (3) Practical reality: Disparity between theory and practice; and (4) Understanding occupation: Approaches and methods to promote mental health. A timeline of key events related to occupational therapy practice and mental health also emerged. IMPLICATIONS: Reflecting on the history of a profession can assist its members to understand current practices and future possibilities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".