MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Change in reflections of physiotherapy students over time in clinical placements

2006· article· en· W2134946056 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning in Health and Social Care · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationMedical educationScope (computer science)MedicinePsychologyReflection (computer programming)Qualitative researchClinical PracticePhysical therapySociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Physiotherapy programmes are expected to develop reflective practitioners. Research has indicated that the reflections of senior students and clinicians are different from students beginning their clinical experience. However, most of these studies are cross‐sectional in nature. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe the changes in the reflections of a group of physiotherapy students from their first to their third clinical placements. Subjects were 15 female students (mean age: 20.1 years) in an undergraduate physiotherapy programme in the United Arab Emirates. They wrote weekly entries in a journal during their first and third clinical placements. They described an event, their reaction to it and how it might affect their future behaviour. Two evaluators independently read and coded the content of all journals, and then worked together to categorize the data, rate the level of reflection of each weekly entry and develop themes. The levels of reflection and the themes from the two time periods were compared. Quotes from individual students from both time periods illustrated the changes in reflections. Students’ highest level of reflection for each entry ranged from level 1 (only described the event) to level 4 (gained a new understanding), with a slightly higher mean level of reflection during the third clinical placement. Themes derived from the journals were Professional behaviour, Learning, Self‐development, and Ethical issues, in the first placement, and Communication, Ethics, Learning, and Scope of practice, in the third placement. In the latter placement, students were more confident and more focused on the client compared with their first placement. Although the overall themes were somewhat similar in the first and third clinical placements, students broadened their perception of the roles and responsibilities of physiotherapists and of the ultimate impact of their actions on the patient.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.493 · 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