Setting Up and Running Online Communities of Practice (CoPs) for Veterinary Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communities of practice (CoPs) are social systems consisting of individuals who come together to share knowledge and solve problems around a common interest. For educators, membership in a CoP can facilitate access to expertise and professional development activities and generate new collaborations. This teaching tip focuses on online CoPs and provides tips for setting up and running such communities. The initial planning phase involves establishing the purpose of the CoP, recruiting an administrative team, designing the structure of the online environment, and choosing a platform. Once the online platform is launched, running the CoP involves building the membership, encouraging engagement (primarily in discussion forums), finding ways to create and share useful resources, and sustaining the community as an active and effective CoP. We also describe a specific example of an online CoP for veterinary educators involved in clinical skills teaching. The membership has grown to represent an international community who engage in a range of activities including sharing knowledge, tips and ideas, asking questions, discussing challenges, and promoting collaborative activities.
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 | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".