How trainees develop an initial theory of practice: A process model of tentative identifications
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
Abstract Aim: The increasing importance of integrative practice highlights the need to explore how trainees develop their theoretical stance. This investigation explored the experiences of trainees to elaborate a model of how they developed their personal theories of practice. Method: Seventeen Masters level trainee counsellors kept weekly journals recording how they developed a working theory of practice. Grounded theory analysis of the journals was used to develop a model of the process. Findings: The resulting Process Model of Tentative Identifications illustrates how a personal theory developed through trainees' tentative identifications with theories of practice, and how factors such as reading, personal philosophy, practice, and supervision interact to produce the identifications. A diagram of the model highlights the relationships among a variety of personal and professional factors that ranged from highly abstract to concrete and practice‐based. Discussion: The model is consistent with several factors identified in previous research and highlights how trainees develop working theories of 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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