Action Research as a Qualitative Research Approach in Inter- Professional Education: The QUIPPED Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian government supports the transformation of education for health care providers based on the recognized need for an inter- professional collaborative approach to care . This first paper in a series of papers demonstrates the credibility of an action research approach for the promotion and understanding of inter- professional education (IPE). Located in the critical paradigm, this action research project is concerned with creating an educational environment that enhances the ability of learners and educators to provide patient-centred care through inter- professional collaboration. The QUIPPED project has invited various stakeholders (faculty an d learners from various disciplines, consumers of health care, university administration and clinicians) to participate in the collaborative transformation of the educational culture and the co- creation of a shared knowledge for IPE.
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 | 0.240 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".