Surgery 101: Evaluating the use of podcasting in a general surgery clerkship
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
BACKGROUND: Provision of learning resources online is rapidly becoming a feature of medical education. AIMS: This study set out to determine how medical students engaged in a 6-week clerkship in General Surgery would make use of a series of audio podcasts designed to meet their educational objectives. METHODS: Patterns of use and student learning styles were determined using an anonymous survey. RESULTS: Of the 112 students, 93 responded to the survey (83%); 68% of students reported listening to at least one podcast (average number: six). While students reported listening in a variety of time and places, the majority of students reported listening on a computer in dedicated study time. Of the listeners, 84% agreed the podcasts helped them learn core topics, and over 80% found the recordings interesting and engaging. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that podcasts are an acceptable learning resource for medical students engaged in a surgery clerkship, and can be integrated into existing study habits. We believe that podcasting can help us cater to busy students with a range of learning styles. We have also shown that a free online resource developed by one school can reach a global audience many times larger than its intended target: to date, the 'Surgery 101' podcast series has been downloaded more than 160,000 times worldwide.
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 | 0.022 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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