Use of Lecture Recordings in Dental Education: Assessment of Status Quo and Recommendations
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
This research project was part of a planned initiative at the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine to incorporate lecture recordings as standard educational support technologies. The goal of an institutional survey was 1) to gather current data about how dental educators across the United States and Canada use lecture recordings; 2) determine dental educators' perceived value and outcomes of using lecture recordings; and 3) develop recommendations based on #1 and #2 for the dental education community. Of the sixty-six North American dental schools at the time of the study, forty-five schools responded to the survey, for a 68 percent response rate. Of the respondents, twenty-eight schools were found to currently conduct lecture recording; these comprised the study sample. This study focused on the dental schools' past experiences with lecture recording; thus, those not currently engaged in lecture recording were excluded from further analysis. The survey questions covered a wide range of topics, such as the scope of the lecture recording, logistics, instructional design considerations, outcomes related to student learning, evaluation and reception, barriers to lecture recording, and issues related to copyright and intellectual property. The literature review and results from the survey showed that no common guidelines for best practice were available regarding lecture recordings in dental education. The article concludes with some preliminary recommendations based on this study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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