MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determining optimal learning conditions for acquiring spatial 3D information using computer‐based anatomical reconstructions

2009· article· en· W265250255 on OpenAlexaff
Ngan Nguyen, Andrew J. Nelson, Timothy D. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereoscopyComputer scienceSpatial abilityMental rotationArtificial intelligencePaceSpatial analysisHuman–computer interactionComputer visionTest (biology)Stereo displayMathematicsPsychologyCognitionGeographyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interactive stereoscopic 3D digital models of head and neck structures, generated from CT scans of a male cadaver, have been developed. The display and interactive features of the models will be used to determine optimal conditions for acquiring 3D information for individuals with different spatial abilities. A pre‐mental rotation test will be used to determine participants' spatial ability. Based on pre‐test results, participants will be assigned to either the high or low spatial ability group. Members of each group will be further divided into four subgroups based on four learning conditions. A stereo/high‐interactive group will study anatomy using stereoscopic models and will have active control over the pace and direction of the model. A non‐stereo/low‐interactive group will examine anatomy with 2D images and restricted interaction. A stereo/low‐interactive and non‐stereo/high‐interactive group will study the same anatomy in corresponding conditions. Learning will be assessed by 50 multiple‐choice questions that require mental manipulation of internalized 3D anatomical representations. The results of this study will aid the design and implementation of effective 3D computer visualizations to help students comprehend the spatial 3D organization of the human body, while accounting for individual differences in spatial abilities. Grant Funding Source Internal

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207