MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789774554 · doi:10.1017/s1551929500051671

Virtual Electron Microscopy for Undergraduate/Graduate Classes

2005· article· en· W2789774554 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy Today · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanotechnology research and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpossibilityGraduate studentsAsk priceMathematics educationElectron micrographsElectron microscopeMedical educationNanotechnologyComputer scienceEngineering physicsPsychologyEngineeringOpticsPhysicsMaterials scienceMedicinePolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract How do you give 1150 undergraduates in an introductory cell biology course (Biology 200) access to electron microscopes? Students often ask if they can see the electron microscopes. They often ask if they will have an opportunity to learn EM. As part of the course material, students are expected to recognize the images produced by different EM techniques, know the advantages and disadvantages of these techniques and interpret 2-dimensional micrographs in 3 dimensions. This is akin to teaching the theory of baking bread without ever smelling it in the oven. A pilot project was designed to address getting round the impossibility of bringing 1150+ students into the BioImaging Facility. This initiative gave selected undergraduates a hands-on experience of SEM in the BioImaging Facility and allowed the rest of their classmates to share that experience.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.292 · 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