An occupational therapy community development practice process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background.Little research has focused on the application of the Canadian Practice Process Framework (CPPF) to occupational therapists’ work in community development (CD).Purpose.This study sought to describe Canadian occupational therapists’ CD practice processes.Method.Using interpretive description, Canadian occupational therapists engaged in CD practice participated in an initial interview and follow-up interview or focus group. Content analysis was used to analyze the data.Findings.Eight occupational therapists participated in describing a process that focused on five key elements: (1) getting to know the community, (2) getting the ball rolling/planning together, (3) building (upon) occupational opportunities, (4) revisiting the approach, and (5) striving for sustainability. These elements occurred within a practice context and frames of reference related to CD practice.Implications.Participants outlined a process that was less discrete than the CPPF and highlighted the knowledge and skills needed along with the less tangible attitudes/approaches required to engage with communities.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".