MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051833135 · doi:10.1089/109662101300051942

Integrating the "New" with the "Traditional": An Innovative Education Model

2001· article· en· W2051833135 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyCurriculumPalliative careMedical educationMedicineNursingPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1998 the Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Alberta, Canada, introduced a new elective semester course entitled "The Pain Module" for pharmacy students in their final year of undergraduate training. The aim was to build on the existing theoretical content related to areas such as pharmacology and therapeutics and to generate opportunities for skill and attitude development, including those related to the management of cancer-related pain. Traditional formats such as classroom-based seminars were integrated with innovative methods such as computer-mediated discussions and conferencing (CMC) and academic bus rounds. The CMC component of the course served to provide continuity of discussion between weekly classroom discussions, gave students access to content experts on an ongoing basis and furthered learning initiated in the classroom. Students were given the opportunity to meet palliative care patients being cared for at home and in hospices. A total of 21 students participated in all the course activities. By the end of the course, there appeared to be a greater appreciation for end-of-life care issues. This highlights the need to incorporate end-of-life care into the undergraduate curriculum of disciplines other than medicine and nursing. Evaluation of the course identified several benefits and limitations of CMC. There was increased access to content experts and increased interaction between students. Limitations of CMC included increased time commitments and an open-ended nature that was uncomfortable for some learners. Other benefits and limitations are described further in this article. Future attempts at integrating new instructional technologies should be systematically evaluated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.296 · 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