Intraprofessional Fieldwork Education: Occupational Therapy and Occupational Therapist Assistant Students Learning Together
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the past 10 years, the use of support personnel in Canada has generated significant interest from occupational therapists, professional associations, regulatory bodies, employers, educational institutions, and government agencies. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of a combined collaborative fieldwork placement and weekly tutorial as a teaching strategy for intraprofessional education. METHODS: Seven pairs of student occupational therapists and occupational therapist assistants were assigned to fieldwork placements. Tutorials were scheduled during the placements to discuss intraprofessional issues and provision of occupational therapy services in the clinical setting. Journaling and focus groups were used to collect data from students, tutors, and preceptors. FINDINGS: Three key themes emerged from the data: (1) developing the relationship, (2) understanding roles, and (3) recognizing environmental influences on learning. IMPLICATIONS: Intraprofessional learning experiences prior to graduation can help prepare occupational therapy and occupational therapist assistant students for future collaborative practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".