A Descriptive Account of an Inter-Professional Collaborative Leadership Project
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A collaborative project between an academic healthcare faculty and a professional development director resulted in the design, delivery and evaluation of an inter-professional collaborative leadership workshop with ongoing leadership development activities. The workshop attendees were five inter-professional teams from one large, urban cancer care center in Taipei, Taiwan. The workshop included didactic instruction complemented with team discussions and interactive exercises. Continued practice was encouraged, such as appreciative inquiry exercises and rotated team leadership. Evaluation involved the use of a cross-culturally validated collaborative practice tool and follow-up interviews and focus groups. Although the formal workshop was a 1-day session, continued organizational support and systematic approaches to collaborative leadership practice in clinical settings were necessary components for transfer of learning from the workshop to real life. This paper will include an overview of the foundational leadership concepts covered in the workshop. The instructional strategies, evaluation methods and outcomes will be discussed. The limitations and strengths of this collaborative leadership project will be provided, as well as future plans for a collaborative leadership development program.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it