Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the goals of service-learning is to serve the needs of the community. Before this can be accomplished, roles of the various individuals involved in the partnership must be established. The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in perceptions of oral and general health issues between dental hygiene and social work students in order bridge disciplines through multidisciplinary collaboration through service-learning. Curriculum development is necessary to ensure professional groups have awareness of the skills and contributions each can provide. Introduction Multi-disciplinary collaboration is increasingly important dimension of the helping process for professionals working within health and human arenas. A critical component of this preparation process is to encourage the development of multi-disciplinary partnerships through service-learning approaches. One of the goals of service-learning is to serve the needs of the community. Before this can be accomplished, roles of the various individuals involved in the partnership must be established and understood through contact and collaborative activities. To date, a limited amount of research has been conducted to understand how service-learning activities bridge disciplines to collaborate, builds understanding of other's professional perspectives, and prepares students for multidisciplinary collaboration. Service-learning has been adopted by many campuses associated with higher education within the United States and Canada. The definition of service-learning carries different connotations depending upon the setting. For example, early definition of service-learning has been defined by Boyer (1994) as an approach to teaching, learning, and that not only celebrates the scholarship of discovering knowledge, but also celebrates the scholarship of integrating knowledge, and applying knowledge through professional service (p. A48). One of the earliest approaches to learning was conceptualized by John Dewey (Boydston,1977), who conceptually moved away form the paradigm of related to volunteerism and charity to the role of as a responsibility of the individual toward democratic citizenship. Dewey sought to link the concepts of education/human learning with community and democratic participation (Taylor, 2002). Eyler & Giles (1999) suggests that service-learning is a method by which students improve their academic learning and develop personal skills through structured projects. In turn, these projects meet community needs, and build upon students' activities by providing these students with opportunities to learn through reflecting upon their experiences. Service-learning is distinguished from volunteerism by the nature of its reciprocal relationship. Students not only provide to the community, but also receive a benefit from their involvement, while volunteerism relies solely on the recipient as the primary beneficiary (Furco, 1996a). Service-learning is also distinguished from internships because internships are intended to provide the student with hands on experience that will enhance the students' skills and knowledge, and the student is clearly the beneficiary (Furco, 1996b). The distinctions among Dewey's early teachings, volunteerism, internships and service-learning are important to discern because of the historical roots found within the helping professions. For example, many human professionals such as nurses, teachers and social workers evolved from charitable works and voluntary efforts. Volunteerism was initially the basis of activity for many human professionals, while internships have been traditionally used in order to ensure that the skills and competencies of professional training were developed. Internships have also been used historically as a vehicle to contribute to the workforce. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".