Use of Simulation in Teaching and Learning in Health Sciences: A Systematic Review
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
The use of simulation as an educational tool is becoming increasingly prevalent in health care practice. Institutions have adopted simulations to help educate their students and health care professionals; however, intervention effectiveness evaluation continues to be an area requiring research. With use of this technology, it has become necessary to evaluate this method of educating health care professionals. As simulation use has increased, so has the literature related to evaluation of the innovative teaching method. A systematic review of the literature examined the effectiveness of simulation as a teaching tool. The aim was to evaluate current literature on the use of clinical simulation in health care education. The findings identify themes in the evaluation literature, highlight gaps in the literature as it pertains to evaluating the effectiveness of using simulations as a teaching tool, and support the need for further research into the evaluation of simulation 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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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