Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though hundreds of journal pages have been packed with studies describing, analyzing, and synthesizing the benefits of Problem-based Learning (PBL) over conventional curricula, we still don't really know why. Currently it is impossible to say which of the various elements contributes to any incremental student learning. We need to apply the scientific method to studies of curriculum delivery. Accumulating evidence from strong studies in messy real-world situations will eventually yield important insights and instrumental truths for real medical schools that teachers and administrators can then implement. Examples of feasible experimental designs might include a factorial study. More effective curriculum development is possible only through a renewed applied research agenda that is both focused and grounded in the real world.
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 | 0.253 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".