Faculty development for continuing interprofessional education and collaborative practice
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
This article proposes a framework for faculty development in continuing interprofessional education (CIPE) and collaborative practice. The framework is built on best practices in faculty development and CIPE. It was informed by local experience in the development, delivery, and evaluation of a faculty development program to promote capacity for dissemination of concepts relating to interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in health care environments. Interprofessional education has been demonstrated in clinical contexts to enhance interprofessional collaboration, patient care, and health outcomes. With curriculum design, teaching methods, and educational strategies in faculty development, it is possible to enhance the impact of IPE in clinical contexts. Faculty development activities themselves can model effective interprofessional education methods and practice. An IPE curriculum and teaching and education strategies are outlined. Strategic planning, including the application of a systems approach, attention to the principles of effective learning, and an outcomes-based curriculum design are recommended for the development of continuing IPE faculty development programs that enhance interprofessional collaboration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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