<i>Status of Prior Learning Assessment</i> in Dietetic Internship Programs
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
The purpose of this exploratory study was to further our knowledge of how the concept of prior learning assessment is being operationalized within dietetic internship programs. We reasoned that such knowledge would allow us to determine if the profession is capitalizing on associated benefits. A six-item, multi-part, self-administered survey was faxed to all internship directors (n=42). Results indicate that although programs are aware of prior learning assessment, its application is not consistent. Barriers include procedural, implementation, and philosophical issues. The study results provide information for educators and policy-makers to understand better the factors that influence prior learning assessment implementation and usage. Information related to current usage and perceived barriers can assist in the development of a professional prior learning assessment philosophy, which can guide decision-making, development, implementation, and evaluation of new and existing prior learning assessment initiatives.
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 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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