Career Choice and Professional Preferences in a Group of Canadian Physiotherapy Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on reasons for the career choice and the longitudinal development of attitudes to healthcare work and the physiotherapy profession. The study is part of a larger project on professional development in physiotherapy. A cohort of 60 Canadian physiotherapy students was surveyed on two occasions during their educational programme. The questionnaire was constructed using a theoretical framework about professional socialization. Forty students completed both versions of the questionnaire yielding a response rate of 67%. Seventy-two per cent were women and 28% were men. Job accessibility or economic (25.5%) were the most frequently indicated reasons for the career choice. The most frequently chosen role models were the preceptors in clinical placements (52%). None of the students indicated having a faculty member as a role model. The desire to work in private practice and with adults was ranked highly in both administrations of the questionnaire. Few students regarded home care and community health as preferable healthcare facilities after graduation. Research, managerial work or occupational health were not given as preferable areas of practice. There advantages were statistically significant differences between women and men in their preferences for private practice work and the public sector of healthcare. The results are discussed in relation to gendered division of labour in healthcare and to the development of the profession.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".