Learning reflexively from a health promotion professional development program in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, reflexivity has received much attention in the professional education and training literature, especially in the public health and health promotion fields. Despite general agreement on the importance of reflexivity, there appears to be no consensus on how to assess reflexivity or to conceptualize the different forms developed among professionals and participants of training programs. This paper presents an analysis of the reflexivity outcomes of the Health Promotion Laboratory, an innovative professional development program aimed at supporting practice changes among health professionals by fostering competency development and reflexivity. More specifically, this paper explores the difference between two levels of reflexivity (formative and critical) and highlights some implications of each for practice. Data were collected through qualitative interviews with participants from two intervention sites. Results showed that involvement in the Health Promotion Laboratory prompted many participants to modify their vision of their practice and professional role, indicating an impact on reflexivity. In many cases, new understandings seem to have played a formative function in enabling participants to improve their practice and their role as health promoters. The reflective process also served a critical function culminating in a social and moral understanding of the impacts on society of the professionals' practices and roles. This type of outcome is greatly desired in health promotion, given the social justice and equity concerns of this field of practice. By redefining the theoretical concept of reflexivity on two levels and discussing their impacts on practice, this study supports the usefulness of both levels of reflexivity.
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 | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".