Addressing the Ethical Issues Associated with Fieldwork Education in Occupational Therapy: Results of an Empirical Study Conducted in Quebec
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
Occupational therapists who contribute to fieldwork education are exposed to ethical issues when supervising trainees. Both the ethical issues and the solutions to address these ethical issues are undocumented in the literature. A qualitative study was conducted to document these issues and their solutions. Twenty-three occupational therapists with supervising experience participated in this study. All the participants reported experiencing ethical issues while supervising trainees. This article aims to present the solutions proposed by the participants in order to address the ethical issues of fieldwork education. Intrinsic solutions are linked to supervisors’ ethical, pedagogical or occupational therapy competences. The extrinsic solutions deal with the appropriate measures which can and should be implemented so as to better support the supervisors’ work and better recognize the important contribution of occupational therapists who train the next generation of occupational therapists in clinical settings. This study is likely to have implications on clinical practice, teaching, research and governance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| 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 it