MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968720097 · doi:10.3109/13561820.2011.620187

Interprofessional learning and virtual communities: An opportunity for the future

2012· article· en· W1968720097 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Walsh, Mary van Soeren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interprofessional Care · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeContext (archaeology)Health careInterprofessional educationPsychologyPedagogySociologyMedical educationMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As various agencies increasingly advocate interprofessional care (IPC), it is paramount that the educational implications of this approach are considered. Interprofessional learning (IPL) is necessary for IPC and this paper argues that an emerging educational model, narrative-based virtual communities (VCs), meets this goal. We therefore argue for the fusion of narrative pedagogy with the VC approach to further the IPL agenda. Using stories to teach is not new. Technological innovations now make the possibility of using narrative, a way to enable students to experience greater reality in complex situations. Recently, two multimedia VCs have been developed. Here, we review the use of "The Neighborhood" and "Stilwell", as IPL tools. Early evaluation of these communities has been very positive and they offer a unique and innovative approach to IPL in ways that immerse learners from many professions into the context of the lives of individuals requiring health and social care, and the people who provide that service. Thus, it is possible to more fully realize and teach about collaboration and partnerships among professionals and patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.024
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.415 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interprofessional CareSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207