Defining the end-point of transition to a specialist role in community paramedicine: Is feeling 'comfortable' enough?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Community paramedicine continues to evolve as a stream of paramedic specialisation. However, little is known about the transition from a “traditional” role to that of an Extended Care Paramedic (ECP) or Community Paramedic (CP). Moreover, defining the end-point of transition is nebulous. Existing studies of work-role transition in paramedicine and cognate health fields commonly reported a subjective sense of work-role “comfort” to indicate the threshold of transition had been crossed. But is there more to it? This research illuminated the final phase of community paramedicine transition its end-point. Methods: ECPs (n=25) from two Australian jurisdictions and CPs (n=11) from a Canadian provincial health service, participated in a qualitative study exploring their experiences of transition. The data from the three study sites was pooled and interpreted using constructivist grounded theory methodology. Results: Participants confirmed a subjective sense of work-role comfort signalled transition. Conceptually however, transition occurred through four core categories which permeated the entire transition experience. Each of the four categories contributed “ancillary markers” of transition that coalesced to define the end-point of transition; adequate proficiency in the work-role. Conclusion: The end-point of transition was defined through a complex interplay of personal and group factors. Defining the end-point of transition will assist trainee ECPs/CPs, educators and other stakeholders to more efficiently navigate the transition experience.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".