MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901484255 · doi:10.15694/mep.2018.0000266.1

Turk Talk: human-machine hybrid virtual scenarios for professional education

2018· article· en· W2901484255 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Cullen, Nishan Sharma, David Topps

Bibliographic record

VenueMedEdPublish · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Tools and Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacilitatorComputer scienceWorkflowVariety (cybernetics)Scripting languageFlexibility (engineering)Interface (matter)MultimediaHuman–computer interactionUser interfaceSoftwareSoftware engineeringKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Virtual scenarios provide a means for creating rich and complex online cases for health professional students to explore. However, the response options available to the learner are usually predefined, which limits the utility of virtual patients. Using artificial intelligence or natural language processing to accommodate such flexibility is expensive and hard to design. This project description lays out an alternative approach to making virtual scenarios more adaptable and interactive. Using OpenLabyrinth, an open-source educational research platform, we modified the interface and functionality to provide a human-computer hybrid interface, where a human facilitator can interact with learners from within the online case scenario. Using a design-based research approach, we have iteratively improved our cases, workflows and scripts and interface designs. The next step is testing this new functionality in a variety of situations. This report describes the pilot implementation of this pilot project. It includes the background, rationale, objectives, learning and educational designs, and implications for software development. The costs and time required to modify the software were much lower than anticipated. Facilitators managed text input from multiple concurrent learners. Learners noted a delay while waiting for the facilitator's response, but denied becoming frustrated. The implementation and use of this new technique seems promising for training and assessment purposes related to developing effective communication skills. This report also explores the provisional implications arising from the study so far.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.008

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.392 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedEdPublishSame topicEducational Tools and MethodsFrench-language works237,207