Internet-Based Otolaryngology Case Discussions for Medical Students
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
BACKGROUND: A computer-supported interactive learning environment provides a mechanism whereby medical students at different locations can collaborate to develop an understanding of common otolaryngologic problems as exemplified by cases developed according to the University of Toronto's problem-based learning case guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To see if content knowledge can be acquired as quickly and effectively by computer conferencing as by seminar instruction. METHOD: Seventy students were involved in a study comparing the efficacy of learning about two otolaryngology topics, vertigo and tonsils, by traditional seminar methods or computer conferencing used for illustrative case discussions. RESULTS: A key features examination on these topics showed that both groups gained knowledge during their rotation, but the computer conferencing group showed an increased gain on both topics. Most students enjoyed their computer conferencing experience and found the software easy to navigate. CONCLUSION: Case discussions by computer conferencing result in better acquisition of content knowledge than traditional seminar teaching.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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