Considerations on what moves us: autistic sociality and occupational justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Core philosophical assumptions in the practice of occupational therapy hold that humans can shape the state of their own health and sense of belonging to larger communities through opportunities to do and to create (Reilly, 1962). These assumptions are explicitly addressed in theory development around occupational justice, including the impact of occupational deprivation, marginalization, alienation and the like on well-being and social inclusion. Anthropologist Dawn Eddings Prince’s states “There were many times as a child I believed I would crumble in on myself, my emotional skeleton finally eaten away by the screaming and clutching of a modern society that dissolved me—normal life, other people call it” (Prince, 2010, p. 56). Her embodied experience of living asks us to reconsider what is the relationship between engagement in daily activities and participation when “normal” is experienced as “the screaming and clutching of a modern society” that eats away, crumbling and dissolving the very bones of existence. As an autist, her experience also asks us to reflect upon our assumptions of the relationship between engagement in daily activities and, as first put forth by Mary Reilly (1962) in her seminal work, “making a home in the world and making the world a home” (p. 2) from an occupational justice perspective.\nIn this panel, we will draw from funded ethnographic and participatory research conducted in Los Angeles and Montreal to examine how the experiences of children with autism and their families shifted our focus to the mundane, almost invisible, actions by which persons with autism and intimate others transform and transcend what is considered “normal” and create experimental scenes (Mattingly, 2010; Park, 2008) to re-envision, enact and embody a more just society. Taking as a starting point, Lawlor’s contribution of what it means to be a socially-occupied being “doing something with someone else that matters” (Lawlor, 2003, p. 430), we will highlight the ways in which our narrative and aesthetic conceptual frameworks highlighted significant moments and events that moved us and challenged us to refine our own own assumptions as occupational therapists and occupational scientists. We will also reflect on how these brief moments cross time, capturing both past experiences and future possibilities; and transcend immediate contexts, reconfiguring immediate physical space into places of being engaged and included in social worlds.\nKeywords: Sociality, Autism, Occupational justice\nQuestions:\n1. How is it that seemingly ordinary or mundane moments of life can be experienced as extraordinary?\n2. In what ways do narrative, aesthetic, and ethnographic approaches contribute to deeper understandings of engagement and participation for people with autism and their families?\n3. From a social accountability and occupational justice perspective, what is at stake in considering individuals with autism as socially occupied beings?\n4. Does a more focused application of principles of occupational justice generate better possibilities for enhancing participation for people with autism and their families?
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.098 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".