Physiotherapy: an active, transformational, and authentic career choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This paper arises from a larger study exploring early professional socialization across five professions: physiotherapy, nursing; dentistry; pharmacy; and medicine. Purpose: To explore the process of physiotherapy student professional identity development and the evolution of expectations and views of interprofessional practice in the first year of their program. Methods: One-on-one interviews at three time points: after being accepted into the physiotherapy program and before classes began (T1; n = 12); after term one (T2; n=9) and on completion of year one (T3; n = 7). Analyses employed narrative methodology, guided by anticipatory socialization and professional identity theories. Results: At T1, participants described their path towards physiotherapy, indicating career satisfaction as the core of their choice. Expectations of practice aligned with the normative social positioning of the profession. T2 and T3 interviews revealed that their pre-entry conceptualization of practice was both challenged and positively reinforced, leading them either to being satisfied with, or questioning their choice. Clinical placements created the most meaningful opportunities to understand their roles both as individual professionals and members of a collaborative team. Conclusion: Findings revealed the complex process of professional socialization in physiotherapy students with implications for admissions and formal and IPE curricula.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".