Exploring the Educational Potential of a Video-Interview with a Shoah Survivor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to establish what the education potential is of video-interviews with Shoah survivors that have been made available as historical sources for learners in secondary schools. It does so by looking at some of the learner tasks pertaining to one selected video-interview and by using empirical data consisting of masters students’ responses to the same interview. After contextualising the research within the intersecting field of video-testimony and Holocaust education, a brief overview of the DVD medium called “Zeugen der Shoah” (“Witnesses of the Shoah”) is presented. Thereafter the tool used for the analysis is explained. According to three dimensions of the tool, some learner tasks pertaining to the selected interview are then analysed. These dimensions are: making own scientific knowledge, learning empathy and positioning learners as collectives. The findings are discussed with examples from the reception study with the masters students. Results show that the tasks strongly encourage abstract-theoretical and empathetic thinking and also that they encourage cooperative learning. There is evidence that a top-down type of pedagogy (moral lecturing) was purposefully avoided.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".