Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine physical therapy students’ learning about disability through an Exploring Perspectives on Disability (EPOD) learning event that was developed by School of Rehabilitative Science, McMaster University. EPOD consists of two scheduled classes discussing disability, a shadowing experience with an individual with a disability living in the community, and writing a reflective summary assignment about their learning. The EPOD was developed to broaden students’ perspectives regarding disability, promote a positive attitude about disability, and facilitate best practice approaches in community-based care. Method: Fifty-seven students in the first semester of a Master’s entry level physical therapy program completed the EPOD event. In the reflective summary, they were asked to describe and reflect on their experiences and observations about the individual they shadowed. The summaries were transcribed into NUD*IST, a computerized software program for qualitative data management. Each summary was read by two of four investigators who independently read, coded, and categorized the entries, and then worked together to identify themes. Results: Three major themes were identified: (1) students’ assumptions about disability were challenged; (2) their understanding about supports and barriers for people with disability was enhanced; and (3) they acknowledged the professional growth and learning that occurred. Conclusions: Through the EPOD learning event, students gained new knowledge about disability and their attitudes about people with disability were influenced. The EPOD was important in broadening their perspectives concerning disability and promoting a positive attitude about disability
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 | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".