MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flexible Approaches to Using Online Case Data When Coupled with Textbook Based Case Studies in Medical Sciences Teaching and Learning

2016· article· en· W2618149750 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

VenuePapers on postsecondary learning and teaching. · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematics educationData sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Case studies are commonly used to anchor important theoretical concepts with carefully guided use of practical experience. This session explored approaches and methodologies for effective and creative use of coupling online case study resources with text book case studies in order to enhance learning. An illustrative example referred to use of a textbook of case studies in One Health (i.e., the factors and health outcomes related to the interaction of animals, humans, and their environment) to be published in 2016 that is coupled with online data, visual resources, and testimonials. Coupling textbooks of medical case studies in particular with online additional data is not new, although there was no record found of a learning situation using medical case studies in which prescriptive step-by-step instructional guidance for using online data is deliberately avoided and instead students are encouraged to rely on their own creativity. Benefits of avoiding a prescriptive approach include a more realistic learning experience for clinicians, latitude for use of personally preferred learning styles, and more opportunities for creativity in the teaching and learning process. Participants in the session reflected on their own teaching and learning style preferences to contribute to discussion of how required use of online case study data might stimulate or suppress their creativity, both for teachers and students. Barriers included lack of consistency in audience demographic making it more challenging to provide a consistent learning experience and poor attention to context of application of case study lessons; catalysts included some degree of guided process for stimulating use of case study materials, supervision of discussion to facilitate sufficient interaction for learning, and adequate funding for preparing and hosting case study materials.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.167 · 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