MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989453786 · doi:10.1002/ar.10054

Using web‐based animations to teach histology

2002· review· en· W1989453786 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc A.S. Brisbourne, Sangyoon Chin, Erica Melnyk, David A. Begg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Anatomical Record · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsNorthern Alberta Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Alberta
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsComputer sciencePresentation (obstetrics)MultimediaAnimationThe InternetProcess (computing)Human–computer interactionFunction (biology)World Wide WebComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have been experimenting with the use of animations to teach histology as part of an interactive multimedia program we are developing to replace the traditional lecture/laboratory-based histology course in our medical and dental curricula. This program, called HistoQuest, uses animations to illustrate basic histologic principles, explain dynamic processes, integrate histologic structure with physiological function, and assist students in forming mental models with which to organize and integrate new information into their learning. With this article, we first briefly discuss the theory of mental modeling, principles of visual presentation, and how mental modeling and visual presentation can be integrated to create effective animations. We then discuss the major Web-based animation technologies that are currently available and their suitability for different visual styles and navigational structures. Finally, we describe the process we use to produce animations for our program. The approach described in this study can be used by other developers to create animations for delivery over the Internet for the teaching of histology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations73
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Anatomical RecordSame topicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207