Impact of interpersonal relations on learning and development of professional identity: A study of residents’ perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Informal learning includes all occurrences during one's life when learning is not deliberate. Prior research on informal learning in healthcare contexts examined learning happening outside of the formal curriculum, yet still in the workplace. This study explores residents' perceptions about extracurricular factors outside of the workplace that contribute to their learning and development of professional identity, whether interpersonal relations are recognised as such factors, and positive and negative impacts of interpersonal relations. METHODS: In this qualitative study, all 21 residents in our Emergency Medicine programme were asked, in a web-based survey with open-ended questions, to identify extracurricular sources outside of the workplace perceived as contributing to their learning and professional identity development, and list positive and negative impacts of interpersonal relations outside of work on learning and identity development. Themes were extracted through content analysis of the narrative responses. Two reviewers coded all data. RESULTS: Thirteen (62%) residents identified 37 factors grouped under five themes: learning activity, role modelling, support, non-clinical academic roles, and social interactions. Interpersonal relations were perceived as having positive and negative impacts, including creating support, positive role modelling and mentoring, increasing concrete learning, as well as lapses in teaching skills, deficits in professional role training, and loss of personal time. CONCLUSIONS: Several extracurricular factors outside of the workplace contribute to resident learning and identity development, including interpersonal relations, which have positive and negative impacts. The most often noted negative impact of interpersonal relations outside of work between residents and faculty related to perceived lapses in teaching skills.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".