MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811256243 · doi:10.1152/advan.00064.2018

Best practices in active and student-centered learning in physiology classes

2018· review· en· W2811256243 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAJP Advances in Physiology Education · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsPhysiologyActive learning (machine learning)Teaching methodHuman physiologyPsychologyMathematics educationComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review article includes our analysis of the literature and our own experiences in using various types of active learning as best practices for evidence-based teaching in physiology. We have evaluated what physiology students should be expected to learn and what are specific challenges to enhancing their learning of physiology principles. We also consider how the instructor should design his or her teaching to improve buy-in from both students and other faculty members. We include a discussion of how the readers can evaluate their teaching approaches for their successes in enhancing student learning of physiology. Thus we have addressed pedagogical improvements specific to student learning of physiology, with additional suggestions from cognitive psychology approaches that can improve physiology teaching and 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.418 · 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