What about us?: a call to include oral health professions within interprofessional education for collaborative practice
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 collaboration (IPC) among the health professions is recognised as a vital component of efficient health systems and comprehensive healthcare teams. Interprofessional education for collaborative practice (IPECP) is foundational for health professional students to gain an understanding of professional roles, responsibilities, and the value of other professions to patient care. Oral health professionals are highly skilled and knowledgeable experts who recognise the oral-systemic health link. However, they have been largely excluded from, and underutilised within primary healthcare settings and interprofessional teams. Given that oral health is a key indicator of overall health and wellbeing, there is a need mobilise oral health professionals within primary healthcare practice. Yet, advancements for IPECP in oral health education face significant barriers which impede the integration of the oral health professions within interprofessional teams. Collaborative approaches across health programmes to devise intentional, authentic, and transformative strategies for IPECP are needed to bridge gaps in patient care and to dismantle problematic perceptions of 'oral health' as distinct from overall health and wellbeing in contemporary healthcare practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it