Dissection: A positive experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First-year medical students were surveyed by questionnaire to assess levels of stress and physical symptoms resulting from their experience of the anatomy room. There was a 100% response rate from the 188 students. Most students (95%) found the prospect of their first visit to the anatomy room exciting. A small number initially experienced physical symptoms, but these had improved significantly 10 weeks later. Most students suffered very little or no stress (80%) on their first visit with only 2% of respondents rating their stress levels as high. Ten weeks later, 87% experienced little or no stress with only 1% stating that they had high stress levels. The anatomy room was rated to be less stressful than workload and assessments. Students reported that the anatomy room provoked thoughts of mortality, and 27% suggested that there should be more preparation before the first visit to the anatomy room. Our findings support previous studies suggesting that American/Canadian students in particular find anatomy stressful. However, the wisdom of interpreting adverse reactions as symptomatic of post-traumatic stress disorder is questioned. This study shows the anatomy room to be a positive learning experience for the students of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".