Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-eight undergraduate students in a health sciences program volunteered for an exercise in the history of examinations. They had completed a second-year course in anatomy and physiology in which they studied modern texts and took standard contemporary exams. For this historical “experiment,” students studied selected chapters from two 19th century physiology texts (by Foster M. A Textbook of Physiology, 1895; and Broussais FJV. A Treatise on Physiology Applied to Pathology, 1828). They then took a 1-h-long exam in which they answered two essay-type questions set by Thomas Henry Huxley for second-year medical students at the University of London in 1853 and 1857. These were selected from a question bank provided by Dr. P. Mazumdar (University of Toronto). A questionnaire probed their contrasting experiences. Many wrote thoughtful, reflective comments on the exercise, which not only gave them an insight into the difficulties faced by students in the past, but also proved to be a valuable learning experience (average score: 8.6 ± 1.6 SD).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.017 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".