Student and new graduate perception of hospital versus institutional clinic for clinical educational experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore final-year students and new graduates from 2 North American chiropractic colleges regarding perceptions of the clinical educational experience in a hospital vs the institutional clinical setting. METHODS: A qualitative exploratory descriptive design was used for this research. Students and new graduates were invited to participate from a United States and Canadian chiropractic college. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 49 students and 14 new graduates lasting 60 minutes. Content analysis of the transcribed interviews was undertaken. RESULTS: The data identified that there were advantages and disadvantages to having clinical education in both settings. For instance, the hospital setting had a more varied patient case mix (making it more complex and challenging for their clinical skills development), the pace was faster, and there was more evidence-based practice. This compared to the college clinics, which tended to be slower paced and had less variation, students were required to build a patient base, and patient demographics resembled that expected in private practice. Each environment was considered a unique clinical learning experience. CONCLUSION: Access and opportunity in both clinical environments is considered optimal in regards to providing a broad and varied student clinical experience. Exclusivity to one may not provide the best preparation for the professional context. As most graduate opportunities are private practice, the institutional clinical environment will provide a sufficient clinical teaching and learning environment to support the professional needs. A combination of these environments is considered ideal for the graduate.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".