Meeting the educational needs of fieldwork supervisors: A collaborative workshop developed by New South Wales occupational therapy fieldwork coordinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the collaborative preparation and implementation of a workshop for occupational therapy fieldwork supervisors which has been developed by the four occupational therapy programmes in New South Wales. The workshop was primarily designed to meet the education needs of new and inexperienced fieldwork supervisors who could subsequently be prepared to supervise students from any of the four occupational therapy programmes in the state. The workshop was also offered to more experienced fieldwork supervisors who were interested in adapting their fieldwork programmes to incorporate the needs of students from the four occupational therapy programmes. The process of constructing the workshop is outlined. Results from pre‐workshop questionnaires (n = 237) and post‐workshop evaluations (n = 257), during the first year of presentation of the workshop, suggested that the workshop was effective in meeting the objectives of preparing fieldwork supervisors to supervise students from a variety of educational programmes. In addition, the collaboration between the occupational therapy programmes during the workshops has enabled other state‐wide fieldwork issues to be identified, and further projects have been undertaken to address fieldwork concerns.
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 | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".