A pilot investigation comparing instructional packages for MTS training: "Manual alone" vs. "manual-plus-computer-aided personalized system of instruction."
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
Matching-to-sample (MTS) training consists of presenting a stimulus as a sample followed by stimuli called comparisons from which a subject makes a choice. This study presents results of a pilot investigation comparing two packages for teach- ing university students to conduct MTS training. Two groups - control and experimental - with 2 participants in each group were used. Accuracy in conducting MTS training was assessed during baseline and post-training. During training the control group received a manual, and the experimental group received both the manual and computer-aided personalized system of instruction or CAPSI. Baseline and post-training combined scores for control and experimental groups were 72.5% and 100%, and 72.7% and 95%, respectively. Results showed that the manual and the manual-plus-CAPSI packages produced similar effects in delivering knowledge in MTS training. We suggest that future studies using a larger sample size are neces- sary. In addition, we suggest that it is necessary to test new versions of the manual and the interaction of CAPSI with other components, such as demonstration videos.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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