A pilot study on interprofessional education: how prepared are faculty to teach?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faculty development for interprofessional (IP) teaching and learning is a complex and evolving part of educators’ preparation for IP teaching and learning. A review of the literature highlighted a gap of rigorous research in the area of faculty development for interprofessional education (IPE). This pilot study used a mixed-methods approach to explore how faculty development affected educators’ preparedness for IP teaching and looked at the possible effects of IP and teaching experiences. Pre- and post-faculty development evaluations were captured using validated instruments and helped to explore the impact faculty development had on educators’ preparedness for IPE. The qualitative data offered insights using participants’ perspectives about IPE where the quantitative method could not. This pilot study offers findings that explored important characteristics that may have a role in faculty preparation for IPE teach and learning and could possibly be used in future research.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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 it