How Recreation(al) Therapy/Therapeutic Recreation Academic Programs Structure the NCTRC-Eligible Internship into their Curricula
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
Recreational Therapy/Therapeutic Recreation (RT) academic programs provide opportunities for students to further develop competencies through the NCTRC- eligible internship prior to graduation. The NCTRC- eligible internship experience is the third focus of the American Therapeutic Recreation Association’s Academic Action Task Force study to understand the landscape of RT academic program fieldwork experiences in the United States and Canada. Out of a total of 95 RT academic programs, 54 programs responded to an online questionnaire about the fieldwork opportunities provided to students. This brief report discusses the results of the NCTRC-eligible internship experiences in three areas: Pre-Internship Preparation, Program Eligibility Factors, and the NCTRC- eligible Internship Experience. Results indicated that most programs provide some level of support in finding, applying to, and securing internship sites; require students to have the majority of the coursework completed, a minimum program GPA of 2.0, completion of a 12-credit internship; and, evaluate learning outcomes through mid- and final evaluation reports. Areas of variability remain, such as site supervisor requirements and course requirements. Recommendations are made for further inquiry related to NCTRC-eligible internship fieldwork education.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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