Investigating the applications of team-based learning in medical education
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
The purpose of this study is to perform a review to account for currently published studies on team-based learning (TBL) in medical education by accredited researchers. In doing so, our two goals included seeking information and critical appraisal. First, the literature was scanned by means of manual and computerized methods to identify pertinent documents. Selected works were then critically appraised to identify the most prevalent themes in the applications and effects of TBL in medical education. After considerable data reduction strategies, six major themes are discussed; 1) experimental TBL approaches; 2) student experiences and perceptions of TBL; 3) student examination performance; 4) faculty impressions; 5) peer evaluations in TBL; 6) TBL in gross anatomy. Although TBL is just beginning to be implemented in medicine, usage of this teaching method is thriving. Students and faculty appear to view TBL favourably and to be highly satisfied with it.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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