MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012578994 · doi:10.1101/2020.03.19.20039339

Integrating Wikipedia editing into health professions education: A curricular inventory and review of the literature

2020· preprint· en· W3012578994 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren A. Maggio, John Willinsky, Joseph A. Costello, Nadine Ann Skinner, Paolo C. Martin, Jennifer E. Dawson

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsCochrane
FundersUniformed Services University of the Health SciencesPatient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsCurriculumMedical educationEncyclopediaComputer scienceInformation literacyPsychologyWorld Wide WebMedicinePedagogyLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia read by millions seeking medical information. To provide health professions students with skills to critically assess, edit, and improve Wikipedia’s medical content, a skillset aligned with evidence-based medicine (EBM), Wikipedia courses have been integrated into health professions schools’ curriculum. This study describes a literature review and curricular inventory of Wikipedia educational initiatives to provide an overview of current approaches and identify directions for future initiatives and research. Methods Five databases were searched for articles describing educational interventions to train health professional students to edit Wikipedia. Course dashboards, maintained by Wiki Education (WikiEdu), were searched for curricular materials. From these sources, key details were extracted and synthesized, including student and instructor type, course content, educational methods, and student outcomes. Results Six articles and 27 dashboards reported on courses offered between 2015-2019. Courses were predominantly offered to medical and nursing students. Instructors delivered content via videos, live lectures, and online interactive modules. Course content included logistics of Wikipedia editing, EBM skills, and health literacy. All courses included assignments requiring students to edit Wikipedia independently or in groups. Limited details of student evaluation were available. Discussion A small but growing number of schools are training HPE students to improve Wikipedia’s medical content. Course details are available on WikiEdu dashboards and, to a lesser extent, in peer-reviewed publications. There is limited evidence of the initiatives’ impacts on student learning, however, integrating Wikipedia into health professions education has potential to facilitate learning of EBM and communication skills, improve Wikipedia’s online content, and engage students with an autonomous environment while learning. Future considerations should include a thorough assessment of student learning and practices, a final review of student edits to ensure they follow Wikipedia’s Guidelines and are written in clear language, and improved sharing of teaching resources by instructors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.355 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicWikis in Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207