A Reflection On: Reflection on Professionalism: Retrospective Review on Health Professional Student Reflections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professionalism is one of the core competencies for occupational and physical therapists.However, difficulty in providing clear definitions of core professional values and behaviours makes professionalism a complex concept to teach.Most proposed frameworks for defining the concept are theoretical or have focused on the academics' and clinicians' perspectives; evidence from students' experiences is lacking.The purpose of this study was to develop a framework to define the concept of professionalism from occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) students' perspectives through analysis of their reflections.The study was a retrospective content analysis of OT and PT students' reflections completed during clinical placements from 2014-2015 academic years.Sixty students (30 PT and 30 OT) were randomly sampled and one anonymized reflection of each of these students was selected.The qualitative content analysis was initiated by applying a deductive approach using previously presented frameworks to define professionalism.Four themes emerged which resulted in a new framework to define professionalism from students' perspectives.The emergent themes included the effect of context, the relational dimension, personal dimension, and societal dimension.Students considered context an overarching factor influencing all dimensions of professionalism.Although their perceptions of professionalism were comparable to other presented frameworks, they primarily focused on the relational and personal dimensions of professionalism.The results of this study indicate that OT and PT students consider professionalism as a multi-dimensional and contextspecific concept.Despite understanding contextual barriers, at this stage of their professional identity development, students tried to adhere to ethics, and professional values and responsibilities.
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 | 0.021 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".