The Impact of Hidden Curriculum in Wilderness-Based Educational Events on Interprofessional Competencies: A Mixed-Method Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to determine if interprofessional skills, attitudes, and behaviours could be learned during an austere medicine educational activity where interprofessionalism remained within the informal and hidden curriculum.Methods and Findings: We used a mixed-methods approach to examine the potential acquisition of interprofessional competencies during wilderness medicine educational events. Thirty-four participants, over two events, completed interprofessional learner contracts, audio diary entries between patient scenarios, and the Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey (ICCAS) using a retrospective pre-test/post-test design. Audio diary entries showed the reflection that took place between scenarios during the orienteering portion of the event and the adjustments toward interprofessionalism that took place. Both the survey and audio diaries confirmed that participants perceived an improvement of their interprofessional competencies after the WildER Med event.Conclusions: The outcomes confirm that interprofessional competencies can be developed during a learning event such as WildER Med, where the interprofessional curriculum is hidden. Austere medicine, which is at the base of this learning event, represents an opportunity for the further understanding and exploration of interprofessional education.
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 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 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".