Mastery Learning – does the method of learning make a difference in skills acquisition for robotic surgery?
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: Few studies compare the effectiveness of blocked vs random practice conditions in minimally invasive surgery training, and none have evaluated these in robotic surgery training. METHODS: Surgical System (dVSS) were used to compare practice conditions. Forty-two participants were randomized into blocked and random practice groups. Each participant performed five tasks: Ring Walk, Thread the Rings, Needle Targeting, Suture Sponge and Tubes Level 2. Transfer to the dVSS was also assessed. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the two groups, except for a few instances. For example, during Ring Walk, the random group performed significantly faster than the blocked group (100.78 ± 5.26 s vs 121.59 ± 5.26 s, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The study results do not follow the current evidence presented in the education literature. This is the first time that blocked versus random practice was tested for robotic surgery training.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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