MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980947956 · doi:10.5195/ijms.2019.398

What Was the Name of That Drug? How Medical Students can Make the Most Out of Their Education

2019· article· en· W2980947956 on OpenAlexaff
Aryan Riahi, David Jung

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical Students · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecallFoundation (evidence)Contrast (vision)Active learning (machine learning)Mathematics educationPsychologyMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consolidating all of the knowledge that medical students are expected to learn in their first two years of education can be challenging. Strategies for committing concepts to memory are explored. The importance of making the most out of case-based learning is emphasized. In contrast with passive-styled learning in lectures, CBL takes an active approach requiring students to apply critical thinking. The power of active recall in committing information to memory is also delved into. In particular, one effective and popular form of active recall known as the testing effect is highly recommended. Applying these strategies will help medical students develop a strong foundation for clerkship.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
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 science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical StudentsSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207