What’s in a Word? Understanding “Interprofessional Collaboration” from the Students’ Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This short research report examines the definition of “interprofessional collaboration” (IPC) held by students from medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, and physical therapy at a Canadian university. Four consistent themes emerged across all student groups: 1) Different professions working together; 2) As a team; 3) Toward a common goal; 4) Using the skills/expertise of other professions. This study also revealed differences among students from the various professions, including hierarchy, respect, and client-centeredness. The authors conclude that interprofessional educational initiatives need to provide opportunities for students to engage with students from other professions about what these differences are and why they occur, to ensure that future collaborations in the healthcare workplace are effective.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".