Discourse / Discours - Reality Check: Are We Truly Preparing Our Students for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many academic settings offer interprofessional education (IPE) experiences that are of short duration and situated in safe, controlled environments such as classrooms or simulation labs. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a 10-week IPE strategy that was incorporated into the final clinical practicum of a BScN program. A mixed methods design was chosen, in the belief that qualitative data would help explain quantitative data from pre-test/post-test design (n = 268). Quantitative results revealed that participants disagreed more with statements on interprofessional collaboration (IPC) after completion of the strategy (p = 0.00). Qualitative findings reinforced these results, revealing a theme of common sense is not so common when it comes to IPC in the health-care setting. When student nurses are being prepared for IPC, IPE strategies should be as real as possible, with exposure to some of the realities of interprofessional team functioning.
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 | 0.027 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".