A New Concept of Unsupervised Learning: Directed Self-Guided Learning in the Health Professions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among the advantages in using educational technologies in health professions education is the opportunity for trainees to learn on their own time. This flexibility in learning opportunities, however, comes with possible dangers associated with unsupervised learning, such as the potential for developing bad habits and misunderstandings, and for overestimating one's preparedness for practice. METHOD: This nonsystematic review reflects on the literatures that speak to the advantages of self-guided learning, explores the metacognition literature to understand what trainees do spontaneously when self-guiding their learning, and reexamines the advantages of supervised learning. RESULTS: Those literatures are combined in an effort to reorient our questions when considering the concept of self-guided learning. CONCLUSIONS: The authors propose that future research should ask questions that focus on our understanding of trainees' natural propensities while learning in the unsupervised context and on exploring conditions that will maximize the educational benefit of self-guided learning.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".