Exposure and attitudes toward interprofessional teams: a three-year prospective study of longitudinal integrated clerkship versus rotation-based clerkship students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored exposure to, and attitudes toward, interprofessional (IP) teams between third-year longitudinal integrated clerkship (LIC) and traditional rotation-based clerkship (RBC) students at the University of Calgary medical school. Students completed a survey pre-post 32-week LIC or 6-week rural, regional or urban RBC family medicine rotations. Pre and post rotation surveys were completed by 213 (48%) students (LIC = 33/34; rural = 76/152; regional = 24/46; urban = 80/208). More LIC students (76%) reported participating on six or more IP teams than RBC students (rural = 38%; regional = 25%; urban = 21%). At pre rotation, the mean attitude to IP teams score of LIC and rural RBC students was high and did not differ. At post rotation, the mean attitude score of LIC students was significantly greater than the mean reported by rural RBC students. Only LIC students reported a significant pre-post rotation increase in attitude. Exposure to IP teams, possibly facilitated by a longer duration of rotation, appears to be an important factor in affecting attitude to IP teams.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".