Bibliographic record
Abstract
Role plays are almost universally loved by educators as a great teaching tool in the medical context, and almost universally hated by students and doctors on training programs, who cite embarrassment and humiliation as key barriers to embracing this teaching technique. “I would rather walk barefoot over hot coals than participate in a role play in front of my colleagues” is not an uncommon response to the suggestion of using role plays in teaching for doctors and medical students. But the good news is that it does not have to be this way! During this fun workshop, Dr. Hilton Koppe will present a number of role play techniques borrowed from psychodrama and adapted for use within the medical context. His use of role plays in teaching has achieved virtual legendary status as a result of the high evaluations they receive from medical students and doctors in training. Workshop attendees will be invited to participate in a number of scenarios which will be used to demonstrate a range of techniques which make the use of role plays both fun, and a highly effective teaching tool. The rationale underpinning these techniques will be outlined.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".