Student and supervisor experiences of health student service learning placements in rural communities
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
Rural health work-integrated learning exposes students to the unique features of rural professional practice and provides opportunities to improve students’ work-readiness. Service learning placements delivered in rural settings seek to address the dual goals of student learning and meeting community identified needs. This research aimed to evaluate the experiences of students and supervisors who were involved in service learning placements in various rural and regional communities across a range of educational and health settings. Thirty-eight participants completed an online survey, reporting high levels of satisfaction with this placement format. Students experienced a strong sense of belonging within the host organisation, felt welcomed, and engaged in organizational and community activities. Supervisors universally reported feeling well supported. Ongoing attention to supervisory confidence, particularly when supervisors are unfamiliar with the service learning placement format is indicated, along with the need to develop student awareness of and access to interprofessional learning opportunities.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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