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
Clinical education is an integral component of physiotherapy student training, 2,3 comprising approximately one-third of all coursework in physiotherapy programmes across Canada. During clinical placements or internships, physiotherapy students develop and apply the knowledge, skills, and professional behaviours necessary for competent entry-level practice, and they are evaluated on these clinical competencies by physiotherapist supervisors or clinical instructors (CIs). At present, most Canadian physiotherapy schools use the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI) 4 to assess students' performance during their clinical placements. The CPI consists of 24 items or performance criteria that, together, are considered to represent all aspects of physiotherapy clinical performance. Developed in the United States, the CPI has undergone rigorous development and testing and has been found to be a valid and reliable measure of physiotherapy student performance. hile the CPI's psychometric properties have been established, a recent Canadian study 5 identified the CPI and the evaluation of students as a barrier to physiotherapists' offering to supervise a student. The study also confirms anecdotal reports from Canadian CIs that the CPI is lengthy, takes too long to complete, and is not always suited to the Canadian physiotherapy context. The new instrument developed by Mori and colleagues 1 is a welcome addition to the evaluation of Canadian physiotherapy students, and I am sure many CIs will say it is long overdue!
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it