MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100545924 · doi:10.1177/000841740106800308

Reflections on Reflective Practice

2001· article· en· W2100545924 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Elizabeth Anne Kinsella

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEngineering ethicsSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, a wide range of professions have adopted 'reflective practice' as an approach to professional development, and many professions have made it a mandatory dimension of their membership credentialling process. Despite the fact that it has been widely taken up in the professional world, there are many different conceptualizations and ideas about what it is. In this paper, six theoretical underpinnings of reflective practice are considered, and suggestions are made about how we can begin to incorporate reflection into our own practices.

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)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.206
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.206
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.085
Scholarly communication0.0210.029
Open science0.0050.015
Research integrity0.0210.052
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations87
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207