Differences in the Utilization of Therapeutic Use of Self by Occupational Therapists in Military and Civilian Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the implementation of therapeutic use of self, and the factors that may influence that implementation in military and civilian settings, as described by occupational therapists who have experience in both settings. A semi-structured qualitative design was used to interview two practicing occupational therapists. Analysis of the audio transcripts resulted in two themes on the comparison of implementation of therapeutic use of self in military and civilian settings: Knowing your Population (identifying differences between the military and civilian settings) and Some Things Do Not Change (identifying similarities between the military and civilian settings). Factors influencing the implementation of therapeutic use of self in the military setting included the themes of The Military Medical System, The Military Structure and Purpose, and The Importance of Intimately Knowing about the Military as a Military Practitioner. Many of the underlying concepts of therapeutic use of self agreed with previous literature and theoretical concepts regarding therapeutic use of self. This was the first study investigating differences between military and civilian settings. Implications of this study are that a therapist should know his or her client base, be prepared to employ many means of creating rapport and promoting “buy-in,” and become familiar with the client population language or jargon. The military as a community unto itself has a distinct language, jargon, and culture that influence the implementation of therapeutic use of self.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".