MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065075905 · doi:10.1111/medu.12583

What is reflection? A conceptual analysis of major definitions and a proposal of a five‐component model

2014· article· en· W2065075905 on OpenAlexaff
Quôc Dinh Nguyên, Nicolás Fernández, Thierry Karsenti, Bernard Charlin

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflection (computer programming)Context (archaeology)Conceptual modelProcess (computing)Component (thermodynamics)Thematic analysisComputer scienceExploratory researchFrame (networking)EpistemologyQualitative researchSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Although reflection is considered a significant component of medical education and practice, the literature does not provide a consensual definition or model for it. Because reflection has taken on multiple meanings, it remains difficult to operationalise. A standard definition and model are needed to improve the development of practical applications of reflection. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted in order to identify, explore and analyse the most influential conceptualisations of reflection, and to develop a new theory-informed and unified definition and model of reflection. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify the 15 most cited authors in papers on reflection published during the period from 2008 to 2012. The authors' definitions and models were extracted. An exploratory thematic analysis was carried out and identified seven initial categories. Categories were clustered and reworded to develop an integrative definition and model of reflection, which feature core components that define reflection and extrinsic elements that influence instances of reflection. RESULTS: Following our review and analysis, five core components of reflection and two extrinsic elements were identified as characteristics of the reflective thinking process. Reflection is defined as the process of engaging the self (S) in attentive, critical, exploratory and iterative (ACEI) interactions with one's thoughts and actions (TA), and their underlying conceptual frame (CF), with a view to changing them and a view on the change itself (VC). Our conceptual model consists of the defining core components, supplemented with the extrinsic elements that influence reflection. CONCLUSIONS: This article presents a new theory-informed, five-component definition and model of reflection. We believe these have advantages over previous models in terms of helping to guide the further study, learning, assessment and teaching of reflection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0170.019
Science and technology studies0.0050.035
Scholarly communication0.0170.037
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations302
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207