Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose : The paper draws on findings from a synthesis of materials from an environmental scan and literature review that aimed to identify the key elements related to the development of interprofessional education (IPE) in Canada. As well as reporting main findings from this work, the paper also offers some ideas for future directions of IPE in this context. Methods : An extensive search was undertaken to identify materials (published and unpublished) which would inform an understanding of the elements linked to the development of IPE in Canada. Results : Over 300 materials (papers, reports, reviews, books, chapters) were identified and synthesized. Four key areas emerged: ‘Learning approaches, activities and methods’; ‘Facilitation elements’; ‘Planning elements’ and ‘Empirical elements’. Collectively, these results aim to provide an insight into the key elements related to the development of IPE in Canada over the past ten years. Principal Conclusion : While IPE in Canada is a relatively recent phenomenon, a number of significant developments have occurred in relation to learning, facilitation, planning and empirical activities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".