Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the role of Theories-of-Practice for health care professionals and specifically focuses on the need for such theories in the paramedic profession. Key benefits to the development of paramedic theory include occupational differentiation and self-awareness, and identification of appropriate research topics. Almost all paramedic research, training and practice are focused on specific patient care assessments and interventions. A quick perusal of any Emergency Medical Service or prehospital care journal will reveal an impressive list of research articles that are focused on demonstrating the value (or absence thereof) of patient care procedures. This is important work, and indeed such research is required in order to appropriately define the medical aspects of paramedics’ scopes-of-practice. However, there is an equally important need to research and develop theory about the whole practice of paramedicine as a profession. This perspective is different from narrowly focusing on discrete, technical patient care interventions, because it seeks to define the occupation more comprehensively, inclusive of all types of professional knowledge. When considering professional matters such as these, one cannot avoid comparisons to other professions and the interest in such theories among other health professions has been variable.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".