Social accountability in action: University-community collaboration in the development of an interprofessional Aboriginal health elective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey of the health professional curriculum at the University of British Columbia revealed a need for improvements in education relating to Aboriginal health. At the same time, interprofessional education has been increasingly viewed as an essential aspect of sustainable health care reform. Interprofessional approaches to education and community practice have the potential to contribute to improvements in access to care, as well as health professional recruitment in underserved communities. While the benefits of interprofessional approaches have been identified, there are few published examples of the application of interprofessional learning and care in Aboriginal communities. This article describes the co-development by university and community partners of an accredited interprofessional, practice-based Aboriginal health course. Seed funding for this course was originally granted in November 2004 for a demonstration project led by the UBC Faculty of Medicine from a national Primary Health Care Renewal initiative focused on Social Accountability, namely "Issues of Quality and Continuing Professional Development: Maintenance of Competence" (referred to as CPDiQ project). This article presents findings from the development and implementation of this innovative course, run as a pilot during the summer of 2006 in two Aboriginal communities in British Columbia, Canada. Recommendations for integrating Aboriginal perspectives and foregrounding principles of social accountability in interprofessional health curricula are highlighted. In addition, successes and challenges are described related to garnering administrative and curricular support among the various health disciplines, interprofessional scheduling, and fostering cross-discipline understanding and communication.
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 | 0.049 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".