“Gatekeepers to the Profession”: Exploring the Experiences of Ontario Dietetic Internship Coordinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Dietetic internship coordinators are key players in selecting internship applicants and in shaping their experiences and professional identities throughout the internship. Coordinators’ experiences of their work have not yet been explored in the dietetic literature. Methods: Four current and four previous internship coordinators each participated in a one-on-one, semi-structured telephone interview. Data was analysed using constant comparative analysis. Results: Coordinators had three to nine years of experience. All stated their commitment and concern towards the dietetic training process. Coordinators noted the value of internship as a learning process and a time for intensive and essential practical training. Overall, participants felt gratified with their work, despite their roles requiring extensive time and resources. Other findings revealed that coordinators felt a sense of responsibility for selecting the “right” interns. Conclusions: A heightened sense of responsibility along with limited time and resources has the potential to lead to burnout for this professional group. Future enhancements and changes to the internship process have potential implications for health human resources among coordinators, but more research is required to examine specific implications of such changes on dietetic training and education in Ontario.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".