Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AS MANY OF YOU might have read in the January issue of ASAHP Update, the web version of the Journal, made available through Ingenta, has received considerable attention. In the past year, there have been nearly 3,200 full-text downloads and almost 23,000 abstracts viewed. With over 1.25 million users, Ingenta offers an excellent platform for the global dissemination of the articles that we publish. In order to increase access to articles in the Journal, ASAHP has negotiated the opportunity for individuals to have free access to articles appearing in the e-supplement, such as Research Notes, Potential Patterns, and other special articles. In addition, beginning with this issue, one of the articles in the print version also will be available on the Association's website. The article from the current issue is entitled Eight Critical Skill Sets Required for Manual Therapy Competency, by Phillip Sizer and his research team. For more than 35 years, interprofessional education and collaboration have been considered important ways to advance practice. Much has been written on the subject, and numerous programs, courses, and activities developed. Despite these efforts, there is a question as to whether much has really changed about the way health professionals are educated. This issue is not solely an American concern. In Canada, the UK, and most of Europe, scholars and educators are facing similar questions about the outcomes of interprofessional education. In an effort to address this issue from an international perspective, professionals from a number of countries have been collaborating and sharing ideas on how to improve the situation. very important effort is now being planned for a joint American-Canadian conference to be held on October 24 to 26, 2007, at the University of Minnesota. Called Collaborating Across Borders, the conference will bring together leaders in the field to share best practices and chart a course to improve collaboration in health care. I would encourage our readers interested in the concept to participate in this effort. Information can be found on the website http://www.ipe.umn.edu. Future conferences are planned for Sweden in 2008, Nova Scotia in 2009, and Australia in 2010. In this first issue of 2007, a broad range of topics is addressed. Tom Elwood presents another of his popular A View from Washington pieces. In his paper, Tom tackles the thorny issue of the future of health care in the United States. He reflects on a number of influences on health care and boldly makes predictions regarding its future. The issue also contains six Original Articles and two Commentaries. Clinical education is a critical component of the education of students in the health professions. This is particularly true for students in radiation therapy. There is evidence to suggest that in some cases, the relationship between students and clinical instructors is not a productive one. Belinsky and Tataronis report on their study to determine whether the past experiences of clinical instructors were related to the ways that they evaluate students in the clinical setting. The authors surveyed a random sample of 400 radiation therapists using two instruments-one seeking information about their past experiences as students, and another regarding their attitudes toward clinical evaluation. They found a significant correlation between the two instruments. Those therapists who reported positive experiences as a student were much more likely to exhibit positive attitudes toward the evaluation of their current students. Evidenced-based practice (EBP) is important for programs to prepare entry-level health care practitioners. However, few studies have reported on how EBP is integrated into the teaching of core content. Selection of specific curriculum content in entry-level health professions programs is only partially governed by accreditation standards of the professions, and usually, day-to-day content is determined by each instructor. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,055 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,039 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,055 | 0,020 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».