MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054966350 · doi:10.1177/000841740607300202

Effects of Workplace Policy on Continuing Professional Development: The Case of Occupational Therapy in Nova Scotia, Canada

2006· article· en· W2054966350 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Elizabeth Townsend, Suzanne Le‐May Sheffield, Robin Stadnyk, Brenda L. Beagan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaOccupational therapyFlexibility (engineering)Resource (disambiguation)Work (physics)Public relationsProfessional developmentPolitical scienceContinuing professional developmentNursingMedicinePsychologyMedical educationSociologyManagementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Continuing professional development is essential for professionals to remain competent, and for effective recruitment and retention. PURPOSE: This paper reports a qualitative study of the effects of workplace policy on continuing professional development on a small, dispersed profession in a resource-challenged province, using the case example of occupational therapy in Nova Scotia. METHODS: The study used a multi-methods design, theoretically based on institutional ethnography. Methods were critical appraisal of the literature, interview and focus group data collection with 28 occupational therapists and 4 health services administrators, and a review of workplace policy. RESULTS: The study identified a policy wall. Notable policies were those which defined who is responsible for continuing professional development, and which limited employee benefits and work flexibility options for those with family duties. It appears that a female-dominated profession, such as occupational therapy, may also face gender-based challenges. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Suggestions are offered for workplace policy makers, unions, provincial regulatory organizations, and health professionals. The findings are generally applicable to any small, dispersed health profession operating in resource-challenged conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207