Can reflexivity be learned? An experience with tobacco control practitioners in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: To explore an example of a reflexive intervention with health professionals working in tobacco control (TC). This study reports the perceived intervention effects regarding: (i) participants' understanding of reflexivity and personal learning and (ii) conditions needed in order to integrate reflexivity into professional and organizational practices. This is a qualitative study using an interpretative evaluation framework to assess the perceived effects of a reflexive intervention in Montréal, Québec. Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 8) gathered data. Data analysis began deductively, guided by the broad categories found in research questions. Sub-categories to populate these broad categories captured the inhibitors and facilitators through an inductive thematic analysis. Our study reveals that, following the intervention, most participants had a generally good understanding of reflexivity and described concrete learning in association with the intervention. Main facilitators and inhibitors to conducting a reflexive workshop pertained to the organizational context as well as to the professional and individual characteristics of the participants. Some participants implemented sustainable changes as a result of the intervention, such as creating a tool, reviewing work plans and developing new mechanisms to integrate the voice of their clientele in the planning process. The need and interest for dialogue among health professionals about how TC intervention activities may inadvertently contribute to social inequalities in smoking is apparent. While there appears to be potential for reflexive practice, the integration of reflexivity into practice is reliant upon the organizational context (financial and time constraints, culture, support, and climate) and the reflexivity concept itself (intangibility, complexity and fuzziness).
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 | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".