The effectiveness of webcast compared to live lectures as a teaching tool in medical school
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
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate whether webcast lectures are comparable to live lectures as a teaching tool in medical school. METHODS: Three Otolaryngology-Head&Neck Surgery (OTO-HNS) lectures were given to third year medical students through their regular academic curriculum with one group receiving lectures in a live lecture format and the other group in a webcast format. All lectures (live or webcast) were given by the same lecturer and contained identical material. Three outcome measures were used: a student satisfaction survey, performance on the OTO-HNS component of their written examination, and performance on an OTO-HNS OSCE station in the general end of year OSCE examination session. RESULTS: Students performance on the written examination was equal between the two groups. The webcast group outperformed the live lecture group in the OSCE station. The majority of students in the webcast group felt it was an effective learning tool for them. Most viewed the lectures more than once, and felt that this was beneficial to their learning. CONCLUSION: Webcasts appear equally effective to live lectures as a teaching tool.
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 | 0.033 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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