A Model of Professional Thinking: Integrating Reflective Practice and Evidence Based Practice
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.
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 | 0.062 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".