Supporting ethics educators in Canadian occupational therapy and physical therapy programs: A national interprofessional knowledge exchange project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethics education is the cornerstone of professional practice, fostering knowledge and respect for core ethical values among healthcare professionals. Ethics is also a subject well-suited for interprofessional education and collaboration. However, there are few initiatives to gather experiences and share resources among ethics educators in rehabilitation. We thus undertook a knowledge exchange project to: 1) share knowledge about ethics training across Canadian occupational and physical therapy programs, and 2) build a community of educators dedicated to improving ethics education. The objectives of this paper are to describe this interprofessional knowledge exchange project involving ethics educators (with a diversity of professional and disciplinary backgrounds) from Canadian occupational and physical therapy programs as well as analyze its outcomes based on participants’ experiences/perceptions. Two knowledge exchange strategies were employed: an interactive one-day workshop and a wiki platform. An immediate post-workshop questionnaire evaluated the degree to which participants’ expectations were met. Structured telephone interviews 9–10 months after the workshop collected participants’ perceptions on whether (and if so, how) the project influenced their teaching or led to further interprofessional collaborations. Open-ended questions from the post-workshop questionnaires and individual interviews were analyzed using qualitative methods. Of 40 ethics educators contacted, 23 participated in the workshop and 17 in the follow-up interview. Only 6 participants logged into the wiki from its launch to the end of data collection. Five themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: 1) belonging and networking; 2) sharing and collaborating; 3) changing (or not) ways of teaching ethics; 4) sustaining the network; and 5) envisioning the future of ethics education. The project attained many of its goals, despite encountering some challenges. While the wiki platform proved to be of limited benefit in advancing the project goals, the interactive format and collaborative nature of the one-day workshop were described as rewarding and effective in bringing together occupational therapy and physical therapy educators to meet, network, and share knowledge.
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 | 0.030 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".