‘Re‐placing’ professional practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While preparation for professional practice is conceived as placeless, it is enacted in place. Consequently, many professionals find themselves working in conditions significantly different than those they were educated in and for. This is especially relevant for new professionals arriving in rural settings after preparation in urban programs, where metrocentric models of orientation to practice are implicitly privileged. The consequent dis-join between practice and place often results in new professionals feeling 'out of place' and questioning their professional competence. It also results in settings outside the metrocentric norm being viewed as less desirable practice contexts. Negative desirability hinders professional recruitment, while feeling out of place and incompetent hinders professional retention; both are longstanding issues in rural communities. Recent developments in professional education and practice standards emphasise adaptability to practise in specific contexts. However, 'context,' a primary focus to date for rural preparation is presented as a largely static backdrop that needs to be accommodated to engage in the 'real practice' one was trained for. Drawing on the spatial turn in social theory, we argue that place both shapes and is shaped by professionals and their practices and as such, must be engaged with deeply and dynamically. This conceptualisation of the relationship between place and practice has critical implications for professional preparation. As interdisciplinary practitioners and researchers working in diverse contexts, we examine 'place' from a social constructivist perspective as a focal point for professional preparation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".