The Potential Influence of Youtube as a Means of Disseminating the Findings of Research to Millennial-Aged Teachers
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
This study sought to discover if the means by which research was presented could influence teachers’ attitudes towards research. Survey and interview methodologies were used in the study. Findings included participants’ feeling that video may not provide the details that teachers would need to put the findings of the study into practice. They also indicated that follow-up professional learning would be required after video viewing. Participants’ level of accuracy regarding the findings of written or video research reports was low, at about 50% accuracy. While the group receiving the YouTube version of the study almost exclusively stated a high likelihood to access research presented in this format again, the group who received the written version of the study was not enthusiastic towards accessing written research in the future. It was not clear whether format has a notable influence on tendencies to use research to support professional learning and practice. As our information consumption tendencies trend towards mediums that promote rapid consumption, researchers should be aware that their work might be made more effectively available to young teachers by being presented in the format of a video, such as those hosted on YouTube.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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