Learning from Today's Clinicians in Vocational Practice to Educate Tomorrow's Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In response to the demand for therapists and changes in vocational practice, a needs assessment was conducted to update an occupational therapy educational program. METHOD: Employing focus groups, interviews and questionnaires, 66 therapists from a wide range of graduating institutions working in vocational practice were asked to: a) identify the essential knowledge, skills and professional behaviours required for vocational practice; b) determine to what extent training is preparing students for vocational practice; and c) make recommendations for curriculum revision and/or for additional curriculum development. Participants and their jobs were profiled together with the challenges and issues of vocational practice. RESULTS: There was strong agreement among participants regarding what is required to practice effectively but disparate views concerning the extent they were prepared for practice. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Recommendations were given for entry and postgraduate level curricula. Findings were compared to a past community practice survey. Implications for practicums, professional integrity and ethical issues were discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".