Living labs: The case of point-of-care ultrasound education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/rationale: This workshop highlights the use of a research support process and framework to transform an educational program into a living lab.The framework emphasizes the importance of using theory, the evaluation of acceptability and feasibility of educational innovation, rigorous testing, and forecasting the integration within the educational system.The research support processes include engagement of a group of educators in research skills development workshops, formation of research streams, purposeful assignments of trainees and supervisors, and implementation of communication strategies to ensure proper orchestration of the efforts.Together, this leads to a development of a living lab, which refers to an environment that integrates research and educational innovation processes though the co-creation, exploration, experimentation, and evaluation of innovative ideas related to teaching.Objectives: At the end of the workshop, the participants will be (1) familiar with the concept of living labs;(2) able to apply the concept to their own contexts; (3) understand the difference between project and program-based research; (4) follow the research framework; and (5) identify key steps necessary to develop a program of research.Teaching Methods: Initially, we will describe the research framework and the research processes implemented by our group in the formation of a living lab.Next, using staged interviews we will highlight how these two components enhance the research experience through multiple lenses such as student, researcher, and clinician.Finally, there will be two hands-on activities.Activity 1: Generating programmatic research questions.Activity 2: Turning projects into programs.Five minutes introduction -20 minutes lecture -20 minutes staged interview with the team -5 minutes independent work (Activity 1) -5 minutes debrief on Activity 1 -10 minutes group work (Activity 2) -20 minutes presentations and debrief on Activity 2 -5 minutes concluding remarks and evaluation.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".