What’s Cooking? Theory and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational therapists are challenged to demonstrate how their practice is informed by evidence of effectiveness. In the absence of evidence from scientific investigation, theories are used to frame judgements about clinical situations. This paper explores how the process of adapting a kitchen can be informed by occupational theories, based on the first author’s experiences as a social services occupational therapist. The kitchen is a familiar space in occupational therapy and forms a key environment for meeting nutritional and social needs in the domestic setting. The process of altering a kitchen is used to illustrate concepts associated with occupation in everyday life. Issues arising from two kitchen adaptations are investigated using categories from the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and the definition of therapeutic occupation (Nelson 1996). The limitations of applying theory to practice are explored, alongside analysis of how theory enhances practice. Finally, a synthesis, of knowledge based on science and creative practice based on art, is proposed.
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 | 0.030 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".