MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067604280 · doi:10.1080/01421590412331282282

Context is key: an interactive experiential and content frame game

2004· article· en· W2067604280 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Teacher · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovations in Educational Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Key (lock)Experiential learningContent (measure theory)Frame (networking)MultimediaComputer sciencePsychologyHuman–computer interactionMathematics educationComputer securityHistoryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most games used for teaching focus on either content transfer or an experiential learning experience. 'Context is Key' is a combination of both as the learners actively interact experientially with the content being taught, with fellow learners and with the facilitator(s). Using this interactive game after a didactic portion of teaching can reinforce the knowledge in ways that require synthesis of the knowledge for application and encourage group discussion and the sharing of knowledge that participants possess. This game was originally created to highlight the complexities of the differential diagnosis of bipolar disorder in adolescents. By playing the game, students can understand why psychiatric symptoms on their own are not as valuable as placing them within the context of symptom clusters, how it takes time to make an accurate diagnosis for complex presentations of symptoms, how to sort symptoms that have similar presentations and why 'Context is Key!'

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.451
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