Relationships of power: implications for interprofessional education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional education (IPE) is considered a key mechanism in enhancing communication and practice among health care providers, optimizing participation in clinical decision making and improving the delivery of care. An important, though under-explored, factor connected to this form of education is the unequal power relations that exist between the health and the social care professions. Drawing on data from the evaluation of a large multi-site IPE initiative, we use Witz's model of professional closure (1992) to explore the perspectives and the experiences of participants and the power relations between them. A subset of interviews with a range of different professionals (n = 25) were inductively analyzed to generate emerging themes related to perceptions of professional closure and power. Findings from this work highlight how professionals' views of interprofessional interactions, behaviours and attitudes tend to either reinforce or attempt to restructure traditional power relationships within the context of an IPE initiative.
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 | 0.036 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".