KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES OF BACCALAUREATE SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS ABOUT INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although interprofessional collaboration is a common expectation in social work employment, interprofessional education has not been a robust feature of baccalaureate social work preparation in Canada. There is also a dearth of research on the topic. These gaps are problematic because social workers with baccalaureate degrees are often employed in interprofessional teams in various health care settings in Canada. To address this gap in knowledge, this mixed methods study explores attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration of social work students in a Canadian undergraduate university. Also, the study evaluates the students’ knowledge acquisition of interprofessional competencies after a single interprofessional education event. Findings indicate a positive change in students’ attitudes and enhanced knowledge of the interprofessional care competencies. The study contributes to the limited body of research on interprofessional education of baccalaureate-level social work students in Canada. It also shows the power of a single interprofessional experiential event in benefiting professional education of future social work professionals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".