A cross-institutional examination of readiness for interprofessional learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the readiness for and attitudes toward interprofessional (IP) education in students across four diverse educational institutions with different educational mandates. The four educational institutions (research-intensive university, baccalaureate, polytechnical institute and community college) partnered to develop, deliver and evaluate IP modules in simulation learning environments. As one of the first steps in planning, the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale was delivered to 1530 students from across the institutions. A confirmatory factor analysis was used to expand upon previous work to examine psychometric properties of the instrument. An analysis of variance revealed significant differences among the institutions; however, a closer examination of the means demonstrated little variability. In an environment where collaboration and development of learning experiences across educational institutions is an expectation of the provincial government, an understanding of differences among a cohort of students is critical. This study reveals nonmeaningful significant differences, indicating different institutional educational mandates are unlikely to be an obstacle in the development of cross-institutional IP curricula.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".