Changing Times: Trials and Tribulations of the Move to Master's Entry-Level Education in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most health care professions are reviewing issues related to the changing nature of professional education and practice. Social work, physical therapy, speech-language pathology, audiology, and recently occupational therapy, have raised the entry-level training requirements to the graduate level to enhance formal education programs. PURPOSE AND SCOPE: In the past few years, this trend has generated considerable debate and discussion within the occupational therapy profession both in Canada and internationally. In November, 2001 the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (CAOT) announced that Canadian universities must convert to entry-level Master's programs by 2008 to receive re-accreditation (CAOT, 2002a). This paper describes the historical evolution of Canadian occupational therapy education, outlines several issues within occupational therapy that are impacting the move, and discusses benefits and challenges to Master's level training. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Recommendations are presented for the development of Master's entry-level occupational therapy training programs in Canada.
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 | 0.032 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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 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".