Collaborative Fieldwork Education with Student Occupational Therapists and Student Occupational Therapist Assistants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The profession of occupational therapy has a long history of working collaboratively with support personnel. This paper describes the process of a fieldwork education partnership developed between the McMaster University, BHSc (OT) Program and the Mohawk College, Occupational Therapist Assistant and Physical Therapist Assistant Program. Eight student occupational therapists and eight student occupational therapist assistants learned together in a variety of fieldwork settings, either in pairs or in groups. Both groups of students kept weekly journals of the experience and completed a post placement questionnaire. The journals were inductively analysed using a retrospective content analysis. The four emergent themes identified from the data are learning about each other's role, collaborative learning, impact on client care and future practice, and resistance to roles. Recommendations for future collaborations are discussed.
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 | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".