Retention of Basic Science Knowledge: A Comparison Between Body System-Based and Clinical Presentation Curricula
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: When the University of Calgary implemented the clinical presentation (CP) curriculum in 1994, it was prospectively decided to administer the National Board of Medical Examiner's Comprehensive Basic Science Exam (CBSE) as a measure of students' basic science knowledge retention. PURPOSE: The exam performance from 2 classes (1995, 1996) of the previous system-based (SB) curriculum was compared to exam performance of 2 classes (2000, 2002) of the CP curriculum. METHODS: Data analyses employed 2 statistical models (covariate multiple linear regression and hierarchical mixed effects), and effect sizes were computed. RESULTS: Differences between CBSE mean scores produced by students from the SB and CP curricula showed a curricular effect on students' retention of basic science knowledge. However, preexisting differences between groups were found to be in the small-to-medium range. CONCLUSION: Evidence supporting the potential of schemes within a CP curriculum and their relation to basic science knowledge retention was observed. Effect size for the CP curriculum on students' retention of basic science knowledge was substantial; however, a notable part of that difference can be accounted for by extraneous and confounding factors. Further research utilizing more rigorous designs to investigate the relation between schemes and basic science retention is warranted.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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