Interprofessional Resource Centre: a knowledge translation strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Interprofessional Resource Centre (IRC) was based on an extensive literature search and a provincial consultative process that involved administrators, health care providers, educators, preceptors, and alternative and complementary health care providers from different disciplines. Information from the literature review was synthesized into a logic model that served as a preliminary outline for the IRC to be further developed during the stakeholder consultation. The findings from the literature were triangulated with the opinions of different groups of key stakeholders who participated in three different methods of data collection: 1) a large-scale deliberative survey, 2) an in-person dialogue, and 3) targeted questionnaires. The result of this process was an online tool that presents information on what needs to be considered when planning interprofessional practice and education within an organization with the purpose of: 1) building capacity within agencies for interprofessional, collaborative practice; 2) providing preceptors with educational strategies to develop interprofessional competencies in their students; 3) promoting the use of technology as a strategy for knowledge transfer within the agencies and between educational institutions; and 4) developing an evaluation plan to measure interprofessional practice and education.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".