Doctoral Programs in Occupational Science: Diversity and Potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intent of occupational science was to produce knowledge of occupation to support occupational therapy and to produce disciplinary academics (Clark, 2006; Clark et al, 1991; Yerxa, 1991, 1993, 1998). This panel includes overviews of five occupational science doctoral programs. Discussion will address how disciplinary doctoral education contributes to the science, as well as the successes, challenges, and pedagogy inherent in doing so.\nColorado State University\nThe interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Occupation and Rehabilitation Science at Colorado State University seeks to advance research, education and practice pertaining to this core subject: human performance and participation in everyday occupations and contexts. The first class began in fall 2013. The program requires students to support their dissertation work with scholarship of relevance to the core subject from the disciplines of occupational science and rehabilitation science. Individualized programs of study include in-depth immersion in mentored research experiences, and an accelerated MS. to Ph.D. option exists for entry-level occupational therapy students.\nTowson University\nThe mission of the Department at Towson University is to promote education, research, and services that address occupational engagement and justice in support of the health and well-being of persons, organizations, and populations. Initiated in 2000, the doctoral program prepares graduates to expand knowledge of factors influencing the participation of people in their daily life activities or test theories of occupation. Core courses include the origin and evolution of occupational science and quality of life of individuals, communities, and populations.\nUniversity of North Carolina: Chapel Hill\nThe mission of UNC: Chapel Hill is to produce outstanding occupational scientists who develop, expand, and disseminate knowledge about occupation and translate that knowledge to various therapeutic arenas. The first doctoral cohort was admitted in 2005 and 13 students are currently enrolled. The curriculum follows a traditional Ph.D. course of study and offers seminars in five domains: core foundations in occupational science, topics of interest in occupational science, cognates on occupational and human activity, research design and methodology, and grant writing. Graduates are trained to excel in both teaching and research.\nUniversity of Southern California\nCreating the first Ph.D. in occupational science in 1989, the USC Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy envisioned a cutting-edge discipline devoted to generating new and useful knowledge. Through a rigorous curriculum, the Division produces career scientists capable of securing competitive funding and positions at research intensive universities. Nearly 25 years later, 60 scholars have graduated from USC into academic positions worldwide while research within the Division informs both practice and theory.\nUniversity of Western Ontario\nThe occupational science field at the University of Western Ontario investigates a range of concepts in connection to occupation. An interdisciplinary program prepares graduates for academic, research, and policy-related careers. One of ten fields within a Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Graduate Program, first admissions occurred in 2006. Seven doctoral and five masters students have completed: six doctoral and six masters students are enrolled. Requirements include an occupational science theoretical foundations seminar, a comprehensive examination and dissertation, a methodology course and an elective.
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 | 0.056 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".