Achievement of student paramedic competency in out-of-ambulance settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competency in key areas is required for job readiness for paramedics, and is monitored by preceptors through in-ambulance placements. Without preceptors, learners are unable to move forward with their training and diploma completion. To address this, an alternative model in community settings to provide students with effective learning opportunities could be explored. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an out-of-ambulance placement model on competency achievement for students in a 2-year primary care paramedic diploma programme at a Canadian college. One cohort of second-year students selfselected a hybrid model of placement, where 6 weeks of training were completed in ambulance and 6 weeks out of ambulance. Competencies were tracked and approved by preceptors, who were certified paramedics and other health professionals. Results were recorded using paramedic competency tracking software and analysed. Compared to traditional placement, the hybrid placement model resulted in a similar average number of competencies being achieved and provided unique opportunities for competency achievement across groups. A hybrid model of placement was shown to have comparable value to a traditional model in competency achievement.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".