Developing interprofessional health competencies in a virtual world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual worlds provide a promising means of delivering simulations for developing interprofessional health skills. However, developing and implementing a virtual world simulation is a challenging process, in part because of the novelty of virtual worlds as a simulation platform and also because of the degree of collaboration required among technical and subject experts. Thus, it can be difficult to ensure that the simulation is both technically satisfactory and educationally appropriate. METHODS: To address this challenge, we propose the use of de Freitas and Oliver's four-dimensional framework as a means of guiding the development process. We give an overview of the framework and describe how its principles can be applied to the development of virtual world simulations. RESULTS: We present two virtual world simulation pilot projects that adopted this approach, and describe our development experience in these projects. We directly connect this experience to the four-dimensional framework, thus validating the framework's applicability to the projects and to the context of virtual world simulations in general. CONCLUSIONS: We present a series of recommendations for developing virtual world simulations for interprofessional health education. These recommendations are based on the four-dimensional framework and are also informed by our experience with the pilot projects.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".