Development of Research Core Competencies for Academic Practice Among Health Professionals: A Mixed-Methods Approach
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
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Of the 4 pillars of academic practice for nursing and allied health, research has been the least developed and no standard competency framework exists that is embedded in health professional scopes of practice. The objective of this article is to report on the preliminary development and pilot-testing of research and academic scholarship core competencies for nonphysician health professionals working within a large urban academic health sciences center. METHODS: We conducted an internal and external environmental scan and multiphase consultation process to develop research and academic core competencies for health professionals working within an interprofessional setting. RESULTS: The final framework outlines 3 levels of research proficiency (novice, proficient, and advanced) and the relevant roles, specific competencies, and observable actions and/or activities for each proficiency level. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations should consider the integration of the framework within performance management processes and the development of a road map and self-assessment survey to track progress over time and support health professionals with their academic practice goals.
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 | 0.096 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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