MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2048320202 · doi:10.3138/jvme.34.3.213

How We Learn: Concepts, Insights, and Rationale for Integration

2007· article· en· W2048320202 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen Abrahamson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering ethicsPedagogyPsychologyManagement scienceComputer scienceSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is based on the author's many years of working in medical education and serving as a consultant in other health-professional education. The article emphasizes basic principles of learning but avoids a pedantic approach, instead using anecdotes as examples. Insights drawn from these anecdotes and principles are reviewed, again with illustrative material. All of this material fits into a rationale outlined early on.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.060
Scholarly communication0.0180.028
Open science0.0040.015
Research integrity0.0090.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→