MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079285350 · doi:10.1002/ase.1301

The LINDSAY Virtual Human Project: An immersive approach to anatomy and physiology

2012· article· en· W2079285350 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

VenueAnatomical Sciences Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteractivityComputer sciencePerceptionSoftwareProfessional developmentMultimediaPsychologyPedagogyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing number of digital anatomy teaching software packages challenges anatomy educators on how to best integrate these tools for teaching and learning. Realistically, there exists a complex interplay of design, implementation, politics, and learning needs in the development and integration of software for education, each of which may be further amplified by the somewhat siloed roles of programmers, faculty, and students. LINDSAY Presenter is newly designed software that permits faculty and students to model and manipulate three-dimensional anatomy presentations and images, while including embedded quizzes, links, and text-based content. A validated tool measuring impact across pedagogy, resources, interactivity, freedom, granularity, and factors outside the immediate learning event was used in conjunction with observation, field notes, and focus groups to critically examine the impact of attitudes and perceptions of all stakeholders in the early implementation of LINDSAY Presenter before and after a three-week trial period with the software. Results demonstrate that external, personal media usage, along with students' awareness of the need to apply anatomy to clinical professional situations drove expectations of LINDSAY Presenter. A focus on the software over learning, which can be expected during initial orientation, surprisingly remained after three weeks of use. The time-intensive investment required to create learning content is a detractor from user-generated content and may reflect the consumption nature of other forms of digital learning. Early excitement over new technologies needs to be tempered with clear understanding of what learning is afforded, and how these constructively support future application and integration into professional practice.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.295 · 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