Student experiences with an interprofessional hope-based healthy aging research project
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
Interprofessional education (IPE) and research enhances learning, team-based communication, and cross-disciplinary collaborations, which can result in higher quality care for older adults. Despite the importance of IPE, it remains underutilized in higher education, demonstrating the need for extracurricular IPE opportunities. This study describes an interprofessional research project that brought together faculty, undergraduate, and graduate students from several health and social science disciplines to design and deliver a 15-week healthy aging program for older adults living in the urban Circumpolar North. Five faculty and one graduate research assistant led the project while eight students team-taught weekly, 1-hour sessions in the community focusing on healthy lifestyles within a framework of Persuasive Hope Theory. This paper describes the project, the student training procedures, and reports the results of the student satisfaction survey regarding their involvement with the research. Using a student self-assessment survey, students report gains in thinking like a scientist, increased confidence conducting research tasks, benefits from teamwork, and greater consideration of the needs of older adults in their field of study. Despite a small sample size, this study also suggests that students may be more likely to consider a career working with older adults if given hands-on experiences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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