Creating the Health Care Team of the Future: The Toronto Model for Interprofessional Education and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One way to significantly improve the delivery of health care is to teach the health professionals who provide care to work together, to communicate with each other across professional boundaries, and to start to think and act like a team that has the patient at its center. The team-based care movement is at the heart of major changes in medical education and will become an element in the new accreditation standards.Through its Centre for Interprofessional Education, the pioneering approach in this area taken by the University of Toronto has attracted international attention. The role of the Centre for IPE, a formal partnership between the University of Toronto and the Toronto Academic Health Sciences Network, is to create a hub for the university and the many teaching hospitals where all core parties can be actively engaged in redesigning this new model of health care. In Creating the Health Care Team of the Future, Sioban Nelson, Maria Tassone, and Brian D. Hodges give a brief background of the Toronto Model and provide a step-by-step guide to developing an IPE program
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".