Interprofessional Education in Four Canadian Undergraduate Nursing Programs: An Examination of the Supporting Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian nursing programs are required to provide Interprofessional Education (IPE) since formal inclusion in the undergraduate curricula in 2012. This multiple case study explored how four undergraduate university nursing programs in Northern Ontario integrated IPE into their curricula, including opportunities and challenges of meeting the new IPE requirements. Data collected and analyzed in the study were: interviews with program directors, focus groups and interviews with faculty members, program documentation and information on websites, and on-site program observations. This paper extends the findings of this study and the themes identified in it. These themes were as follows: 1) varied understandings of IPE, 2) diverse IPE learning activities within curricula, 3) the requirement for support and resources for IPE and research, 4) student participation and leadership in IPE, and 5) limited IPE evaluation (Author names removed for integrity of review process, 2019). In this paper, the themes are explored in further depth through extensive consideration of documentation provided by the involved universities. These resources complement the data derived through interviews and focus groups with faculty and directors. Exploration of these data is a valuable means of illuminating any congruencies and dissonances found in the director and faculty data.
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 | 0.008 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".