Occupational Therapy Students’ Perspectives of Professionalism: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Professionalism is a dynamic, socially constructed idea, rendering it difficult to comprehend. Though characterized by the demonstration of values and behaviors, its meaning has not been fully explored and remains tacit. To explore how first- and second-year master’s of occupational therapy students conceptualize professionalism. Method: This qualitative pilot study evolved from an interpretivist theoretical perspective. Convenience sampling yielded four first-year and seven second-year students from one entry-level master’s program to participate in two separate focus groups. Line-by-line constant comparison methods were used to analyze the data and identify categories. An audit trail, peer debriefing, and member checking were employed. Results: Data analysis of the first-year focus group generated three categories: Searching for explicit examples, Responsibility to the profession, and Building and fulfilling societal responsibility. Analysis of the second-year focus group yielded two categories: Professional values and behaviors and Professionalism as socially constructed. Conclusion: Professionalism is a dynamic concept requiring nuanced understandings specific to context. Students should be encouraged to develop reflective abilities allowing them to analyze and act in a way that is most appropriate for the situation. Understanding students’ conceptualizations of professionalism may better allow occupational therapy regulators, managers, and academic and fieldwork educators to identify teaching and research priorities.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".