"Students are part of our team and they’re part of our workforce"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing collaborative educational spaces is vital for students to be active participants within their own learning; however, there is limited research on the impact of constraints and cultures in developing active partnerships with students in healthcare settings. This paper reports on selected findings from an overarching mixed-methods study exploring UK physiotherapy practice educators’ experiences. The aim of the study was to explore practice educators’ perceptions and experiences of supporting students and considerations for future developments. An initial survey generated themes for unstructured focus groups. Fifteen practice educators participated in the focus groups. Three themes were identified around developing student partnerships: staff values in practice education, the importance of integrating students into teams, and learning from students. Partnership working and collaboration within the practice environment provides a space for mutual growth for educators and students. Partnership can facilitate successful outcomes for both staff and students through a reciprocal learning experience.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".