Lorsque l'enseignement supérieur s'intéresse au renouvellement des pratiques en réadaptation: étude de besoins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In order to meet the new challenges facing the professional practice in rehabilitation, a study of practitioners in the rehabilitation field in Québec was undertaken to evaluate their needs in terms of continuing education in graduate level studies. METHOD: A total of 99 participants were involved in focus groups and phone interviews. An analysis of the content of the discussions was performed. RESULTS: According to this analysis, the participants wished to develop skills that could be divided into two main categories of competencies: the development of the "self as a tool", that is improving the practitioner's ability to show insight into his professional practice, and the "self as a service provider", that is developing knowledge in the cognitive area associated with the improvement in the quality of service. In addition, the participants favored different teaching methods, such as intensive teaching preferably on week-ends as well as short term training programs (9 to 15 credits). PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study succeeded in identifying the special needs of practitioners in order to face the changes in health services. The need to create a graduate program in rehabilitation was highlighted and the participants were enthusiastic at the thought of the creation of such a program.
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 | 0.015 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".