Contextual Influences on Learning Application in Practice
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
Although process evaluation usually ends with the program, process itself does not end. This study analyzed process or contextual influences health professionals face when returning from continuing professional education (CPE) and attempting to apply learning. Follow-up survey data were analyzed for a sample (N = 549) of physicians, nurses, counselors, and rehabilitation specialists. Contextual influences studied include resources, encouragement, support, opportunity, and authority. Logistic regression analysis found support for changes to apply training ideas was a predictor of application for the sample as a whole and for all professional groups except one. Encouragement from others was a predictor of application for rehabilitation specialists, and opportunity to apply learning was a second predictor for nurses. Sufficient resources was not a predictor in any models tested. Results indicate that the practice context can affect educational outcomes and an extended vision of process evaluation is needed to incorporate such variables in the evaluation of CPE.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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