Adding Live-Streaming to Recorded Lectures in a Non-Distributed Pre-Clerkship Medical Education Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Live-streaming video has had increasing uses in medical education, especially in distributed education models. The literature on the impact of live-streaming in non-distributed education models, however, is scarce. OBJECTIVES: To determine the attitudes towards live-streaming and recorded lectures as a resource to pre-clerkship medical students in a non-distributed medical education model. METHODS: First and second year medical students were sent a voluntary cross-sectional survey by email, and were asked questions on live-streaming, recorded lectures and in person lectures using a 5-point Likert and open answers. RESULTS: Of the 118 responses (54% response rate), the data suggested that both watching recorded lectures (Likert 4.55) and live-streaming lectures (4.09) were perceived to be more educationally valuable than face-to-face attendance of lectures (3.60). While responses indicated a statistically significant increase in anticipated classroom attendance if both live-streaming and recorded lectures were removed (from 63% attendance to 76%, p =0.002), there was no significant difference in attendance if live-streaming lectures were removed but recorded lectures were maintained (from 63% to 66%, p=0.76). CONCLUSION: The addition of live-streaming lectures in the pre-clerkship setting was perceived to be value added to the students. The data also suggests that the removal of live-streaming lectures would not lead to a statistically significant increase in classroom attendance by pre-clerkship students.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".