A Model of Professional Thinking: Integrating Reflective Practice and Evidence Based Practice
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Internationally, occupational therapists operate in increasing complex health and social care settings. To function in this environment, high-level thinking skills are required. Reflective practice and evidence-based practice are two key skills that shape the way occupational therapists think. Purpose To integrate reflective practice and evidence-based practice so that their complementary qualities form part of a model of professional thinking. Key issues Reflective practice and evidence-based practice skills both contribute to clinical reasoning. The “model of professional thinking” can enable occupational therapists to integrate these two skills into their professional thinking. Implications Rather than teaching reflective practice and evidence-based practice as discrete subjects, “professional thinking” should be taught as an overarching topic within curricula. This may mean changes to the organisation and delivery of curricula, including practice placements. This model of professional thinking will need to be evaluated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it