The critical consideration on the present status of occupational therapy being regarded as a medical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to critically consider the present Japanese situation\ where occupational therapy is regarded as a medical practice. Occupational\ therapy which can be practiced only when the physicians write the prescription is\ treated as a relative medical practice in Japan. However, there have been a\ criticism on this point from the therapists and the other professions from 1970’s to\ 80’s. Then, the occupational therapists considered their therapy as a clinical\ practice different from medical practice by the new theories of occupational\ therapy that have been imported from the US and Canada to Japan since 1990’s.\ Occupational therapy which places a high value to the culture and the society for\ the patients and their community would not be regarded as a medical practice.\ Even so, the occupational therapists are not excluded from medical profession.\ Occupational therapists who practice in Japan may have absolute or relative\ occupational therapy practice which is different from medical practice, because\ they have had their own point of view which they have used the "occupation" as a\ therapy for the patients.
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 | 0.027 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".