MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2576679378 · doi:10.2147/amep.s133328

Advances in medical education and practice: student perceptions of the flipped classroom

2017· letter· en· W2576679378 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Medical Education and Practice · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlipped classroomPound (networking)CurriculumMedical educationMedical schoolPerceptionFlipped learningMedicinePsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in medical education and practice: student perceptions of the flipped classroom Mohammed Salik Sait,1 Zohaib Siddiqui,2 Yasir Ashraf3 1Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, 2King’s College School of Medicine, 3School of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UKWe read with great interest the article by Ramnanan and Pound which reviews the benefits and limitation of the “flipped classroom” (FC) approach to teaching in medical schools.1 As fifth-year medical students from three separate UK medical institutions, we appreciate the emphasis placed on the development of an effective medical school curriculum that enables students to critically engage with the both scientific and clinical concepts. We hence share our views on the development of the FC approach to teaching.View the original paper by Ramnanan and Pound.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.249
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.249
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.503 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it