MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308609614 · doi:10.1007/s10459-022-10178-8

Combining adaptive expertise and (critically) reflective practice to support the development of knowledge, skill, and society

2022· article· en· W4308609614 on OpenAlexaff
Stella Ng, Jacquelin Forsey, Victoria Boyd, Farah Friesen, Sylvia Langlois, Kori A. LaDonna, Maria Mylopoulos, Naomi Steenhof

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Health Sciences Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson CentreUniversity of OttawaToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflective practiceContext (archaeology)SituatedHealth careProfessional developmentPublic relationsEngineering ethicsPsychologyPedagogySociologyMedical educationMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptive expertise (AE) and reflective practice (RP), two influential and resonant theories of professional expertise and practice in their own right, may further benefit health professions education if carefully combined. The current societal and systemic context is primed for both AE and RP. Both bodies of work position practitioners as agentive, learning continually and thoughtfully throughout their careers, particularly in order to manage unprecedented situations well. Similar on the surface, the roots and practices of AE and RP diverge at key junctures and we will focus on RP's movement toward critically reflective practice. The roots of AE and RP, and how they relate to or diverge from present-day applications matter because in health professions education, as in all education, paradigmatic mixing should be undertaken purposefully. This paper will explore the need for AE and RP, their shared commitments, distinctive histories, pedagogical possibilities both individually and combined, and next steps for maximizing their potential to positively impact the field. We argue that this exploration is urgently needed because both AE and RP hold much promise for improving health care and yet employing them optimally-whether alone or together-requires understanding and intent. We build an interprofessional education case situated in long-term care, throughout the paper, to demonstrate the potential that AE and RP might offer to health professions education individually and combined. This exploration comes just in time. Within the realities of uncertain practice emphasized by the pandemic, practitioners were also called to act in response to complex and urgent social movements. A combined AE and RP approach, with focus on critically reflective practice in particular, would potentially prepare professionals to respond effectively, compassionately, and equitably to future health and social crises and challenges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.041
Scholarly communication0.0160.019
Open science0.0030.022
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.433 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Health Sciences EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207