Executive Director Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational therapy is an essential health service that enables Canadians to maximize their productivity, reduce lifestyle restrictions and avoid unnecessary dependency. A sense of wellbeing and meaning in one’s daily occupations is an important determinant of health and an effective means to reduce health care costs for the public purse. Occupational therapists, as the primary service providers for occupational therapy, are faced with similar human resource challenges as are other health professionals such as nurses and doctors. Initiatives are needed to improve their workforce shortages and to optimize utilization. Labour market information and workforce studies indicate that there is a strong and persistent demand for occupational therapy services across Canada to address the challenges of ageing, mental health issues such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and chronic disease management. Accessing vital occupational therapist services is limited due to therapist shortages, despite the fact that the use of occupational therapy is underutilized when compared with countries with similar health systems. This underutilization is primarily due to both a shortage of therapists, and limited use or exclusion of occupational therapy from appropriate health care settings. The Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (CAOT) believes that the answer to human resource concerns for their profession lies in effective health human resource planning and greater utilization of occupational therapists in many areas of health care under federal jurisdiction, including: services provided to military personnel and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; veterans; public service employees; and, aboriginal populations. In an effort to improve the health human resource planning for occupational therapy in Canada,
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.187 | 0.094 |
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".