MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2769950147 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2017.25287

Interprofessional Education for Internationally Educated Health Professionals: Pathways to Licensure

2017· article· en· W2769950147 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ruby Grymonpre, Mubashir Arain, Lesley Bainbridge, Siegrid Deutschlander, Elizabeth Harrison, Ruth A Koenig, Máire McAdams, Grace Mickelson, Esther Suter

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsProvincial Health Services AuthorityYukon Health and Social ServicesMinistry of HealthSaskatchewan HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLicensureInterprofessional educationWorkforceHealth careHealth professionalsGovernment (linguistics)Medical educationEconomic shortageNursingHealth professionsWorkforce planningHealth human resourcesMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the shortage of healthcare professionals, the Canadian government has supported two innovative health workforce planning strategies: interprofessional education for interprofessional collaboration and recruiting internationally educated health professionals (IEHPs). Interprofessional collaboration is increasingly expected by Canadian-educated healthcare professionals; IEHPs must also be oriented to this practice model. An environmental scan and iterative assessments and evaluations informed the development of an online interprofessional competency toolkit aimed at training and assessing interprofessional collaboration for IEHPs. This paper outlines the complex licensure pathways for seven healthcare professions and confirms "collaboration" is a required competency, further validating the need for the toolkit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.018
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.436 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Quarterly→Same topicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration→French-language works237,207→