Bibliographic record
Abstract
“The beautiful thing about learning is that no one can take it away from you.” —B.B. King As educators in physical therapy, we have many learning needs if we are to successfully provide the foundation for the future practice of physical therapy. As so often happens with JOPTE, this issue provides us opportunities for learning that can help meet these needs. Are you a classroom teacher seeking teaching methodology? Consider Greenberger and Dispensa's study of student preferences about using video podcasts to teach orthopaedic special tests. Student preference for short videos that can be downloaded to mobile devices indicates a potential trend in the future of instructional technology. Are you a classroom teacher seeking outcome methodology? Furze et al continue theirwork in clinical reasoning for physical therapist (PT) students with 2 papers that report on a tool for assessing clinical reasoning skills and the outcomes identified in a longitudinal study of students across their curriculum. The theoretical models proposed by these authors provide a next step in discovering a valid method of assessing the clinical reasoning of our students. Are you interested in the clinical education portion of the curriculum? Or perhaps in gaining a global perspective on physical therapist education? International discussions are emerging in North America and Europe concerning a strain in providing the resources needed for excellent clinical education. Hall et al confirm these concerns with a description of the barriers to supervising students in clinical practice in Canada. In studying over 3,000 Canadian physiotherapists, we now see international trends in countries with varied health care systems that point to similar stress points found in the United States, including clinical instructor feelings of stress and student preparation and attitudes. Are you responsible for admissions decisions? Fell et al pose a timely question regarding the need for prospective physical therapy students to have obtained a baccalaureate degree prior to commencing a professional physical therapy program. Are you thinking about curricular change? Two different articles offer information about potential changes in practice to identify if changes might be required in curriculum. Pignataro et al suggest that educators and clinicians alike should enhance their commitment to health promotion and patient education by performing tobacco cessation counseling with their patients. Van Zant et al studied the status and perception of genetics education in accredited PT education programs in the United States and found that faculty agree to some extent about the importance of genetics education, but do not see it as a priority. From a broader perspective, Cecilia Graham, the 2015 Cerasoli lecturer, suggests that a concept-based curriculum might be used to reduce the overall length of the didactic education for physical therapists. We are confident that much can be learned from this issue and we thank our authors for providing these opportunities!
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.394 | 0.287 |
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".