Blueprints for Connection: A Meta-Organizational Framework for Layering Theory, Philosophy, and Praxis Within Continuing Education in the Health Professions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: As a field, Continuing Professional Development (CPD) lies at the intersection of many disciplines. Tensions can occur as scholars from fields ranging from education to quality improvement seek to advance the practices and workplaces of health care professionals. Owing to the diversity of people working to affect change within the field of CPD, it remains a very challenging space to collaborate and understand the various philosophies, epistemologies, and practice of all those within the field.In this article, the authors have proposed a meta-organizational framework for how we might re-examine theory, application, and practice within the field of CPD. It is their belief that this proposal might inspire others to reflect on how we can cultivate and invite diverse scientists and scholars using a range of theories to add to the fabric of the field of CPD.
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 | 0.045 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".