Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: High quality, timely feedback is one of the most valuable tools available to teachers and their learners.Unfortunately, constructive feedback is often not wellreceived by learners and teachers become tempted to gloss over important issues when they find feedback hard to give.One technique, the feedback sandwich, has become popular but it is limited in applicability and may cause more problems than simply being straightforward.We all know that feedback is important, but how do we set ourselves up for success?Objectives: By the end of this interactive workshop, participants will be able to recognize barriers to effective feedback and identify key preparatory strategies so that feedback will be better received.Participants will also be able to implement alternatives to the traditional feedback sandwich.Finally, participants will practice some strategies for giving feedback in difficult learner situations.Teaching Methods: Some large group didactic information but an emphasis on small group work, with discussion and role plays.This workshop will be adapted to the needs of the audience, including those who give feedback in-person and in written form to classroom learners, clinical learners, and graduate students.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".