Online Study Groups: Reciprocal Peer Questioning versus Mnemonic Devices
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
One hundred sixty students in an educational psychology course used WebCT Discussions to satisfy one of two study group conditions, reciprocal peer questioning or mnemonic devices. Students made postings according to their assigned study strategy in order to facilitate the learning of their group. At the end of the academic term, student permission was obtained to use three types of data for purposes of the investigation: 1) course grades; 2) WebCT records; and 3) rating scale responses that assessed personal evaluation of the virtual study groups. There were no differences between the two study conditions in terms of academic achievement. However, students in the reciprocal peer questioning condition made more postings and read more articles than students in the mnemonics group. Correspondingly, students in the reciprocal peer questioning group reported higher levels of satisfaction with the virtual study 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 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 | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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