MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115909056 · doi:10.15460/eder.9.3.2194

Educational Design Research on Person-Centred, Interprofessional Education for Collaborative Practice (IPECP)

2025· article· en· W7115909056 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEDeR Educational Design Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsCARE Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterprofessional educationProcess (computing)UsabilityWork (physics)RehabilitationHigher education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the rehabilitation sector, students and professionals collaborate interprofessionally when focusing on the functioning of patients. Developing and implementing person-centred, interprofessional education in an institution requires coordinated implementation actions across multiple divisions. The objectives of this study were twofold: firstly, to explore the work processes of educators who implement person-centred, interprofessional education for collaborative practice (IPECB) which, secondly, served to develop process guide materials for educators from various settings. Educational Design Research was conducted in the Erasmus+ project INPRO from 2021 to 2023. It followed an iterative, process-oriented approach that consisted of four complementary workstreams: 1) Literature, needs, and collection of approaches; 2) IPECP design thinking and piloting with project stakeholders; 3) Process guide development and usability testing; 4) Exchange and refinement. A synthesis from each workstream’s findings served to explore the content and structure of process guide materials. Three design topics emerged: a) ‘Facilitating Interprofessional Education in a Global Classroom Setting’; b) ‘Interlinking Higher Education and Rehabilitation Practice’; c) ‘Facilitating Interprofessional Collaborative Practice in Rehabilitation’. This developed theory shows that the needs of educators differed between higher education and rehabilitation settings. As a result, the process guide materials consist of context-specific content. The third topic showed links between the settings regarding the educators’ work process. These findings determined the structure of the process guides. Interlinkages bear a potential for facilitating the transition of educators and students from theory to practice. Future studies may explore the applicability of the findings to other settings and to collaborative (online) learning in general.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.392
GPT teacher head0.632
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEDeR Educational Design ResearchSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207