Fit to graduate:Perceptions of paramedicine students’ physical preparation for the physical role of the paramedic
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
Introduction<br/><br/>Across paramedicine undergraduate degrees in Australia there are variations in physical preparation activities embedded in work integrated learning (WIL) activities or the curriculum. This study therefore aims to assess the perceptions of student paramedics regarding physical preparation activities for the paramedic role in the undergraduate paramedicine degree program at Charles Sturt University (CSU).<br/><br/>Methods:<br/>In this pilot study, 12 paramedicine students studying an undergraduate paramedicine degree completed a three-minute step test (3MST20), a grip strength test, two employment based physical fitness tests, including the Ottawa Paramedic Physical Abilities Test (OPPATTM) and the New South Wales Ambulance musculoskeletal assessment, followed by brief perception questionnaires after each physical test. <br/>Qualitative data relating to student perceptions of their physical preparation for the Australian paramedicine context is analysed through content analysis.<br/><br/>Results<br/>Data analysis for the pilot study is underway and complete findings will be available for presentation. Some initial key findings include that participants feel underprepared for the role based on the undergraduate degree curriculum and there are perceived to be no physical fitness preparation activities. Student paramedics would like to see relevant, specific, curriculum based physical preparation programs. <br/><br/>Conclusion<br/>Further work is needed to assess the practicality of integrating existing, standardised and evidenced based physical employment requirements into the CSU undergraduate paramedicine degree program perhaps as a part of WIL pre-requirements, however, it appears to be important to paramedicine students.<br/>
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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