Written Socratic Dialogue as a self-learning technique in a Pharm.D programme
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
As part of a reform of the Pharm.D programme at the Universite de Montreal’s Faculty of Pharmacy in 2007, self- learning was proposed as a valued instructional technique to develop lifelong learning competencies for the students. In this context, Written Socratic Dialogue (WSD) emerged as the primary technique used by professors. WSD is to be conducted in three steps: (1) self-learning activities; (2) student-faculty interaction sessions; and (3) wrap-up activities. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the place of WSD as part of a range of instructional techniques and eventually to formulate recommendations. Student perception on diverse instructional techniques was determined using a validated survey, which also allowed technique appreciation and ranking analysis, as well as a better understanding of student-faculty interactions. The survey results showed that the benefits of WSD are improved time management, faster learning, and opportunities for in-depth learning.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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