MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109912084 · doi:10.1207/s15328023top2802_02

Instructional Television versus Traditional Teaching of an Introductory Psychology Course

2001· article· en· W2109912084 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching of Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCommunication in Education and Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttendanceQuarter (Canadian coin)AttritionPsychologyEducational televisionMathematics educationStudioCourse evaluationCourse (navigation)Teaching methodHigher educationMedical educationPedagogyMultimediaComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we compared the effectiveness of an introductory psychology course delivered through instructional television (ITV) with the same course taught in a traditional classroom. We compared 3 groups of undergraduates, with 83 receiving traditional classroom instruction one quarter. The next quarter, new enrollees were split into 2 groups: One received instruction in an ITV studio with the instructor (n = 29); the second received televised broadcasts in a remote classroom on campus (n = 29). The 3 instructional formats produced similar outcomes in performance, attrition, and attendance. Likewise, attitudes toward the course were favorable and rarely differed by format. Student attitudes toward ITV were positively affected by exposure to the experience.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.349 · 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