A strategy for supervising occupational therapy students at community sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the field of occupational therapy various innovative strategies have been used to provide students with effective clinical education (fieldwork) opportunities. One of the more unusual strategies involves the student participating in a placement at a site where there is no occupational therapist and no well-defined role. The University of Alberta, Canada developed and piloted a new fieldwork supervisory position. Feedback was collected from both the sites and students to explore the impact of this position on the fieldwork experience for stakeholders. As well, sites and students were asked to give their opinions on more general aspects of these placements. Both sites and students positively endorsed the fieldwork educator for independent community placement's role. Most recommendations for improvement revolved around increasing the time dedicated to this position and making it permanent. Caution must be taken in generalizing the results of this study, as there may be various considerations that make this an appropriate supervision strategy in Alberta, Canada but not in other locations. Further research is required to determine whether this supervision strategy could be used with other students or professions in other locations.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".