Interdisciplinary collaboration: the experience of a francophone interdisciplinary primary care team with the integration of the nurse practitioner role
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As life expectancy rises and the rates of chronic diseases increase, we are challenged to transform our vision of health care, particularly in primary care settings. Options are rethinking team composition, and expanding our understanding of what is needed for well-functioning interdisciplinary teams and effective integration of a wide range of professionals. This case study investigates the factors that impact team functioning with the introduction of a new role by comparing and contrasting perspectives from various professional groups and clients with the aim of better understanding the important elements in facilitating integration of the new role. This study highlights the importance of factors such as the new provider’s familiarity, experience, and qualities in facilitating the other team members’ and clients’ acceptance. In addition, the findings reveal the positive impact that the new provider had on improving the services and in promoting the clients’ adherence to their plan of care.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".