MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014648354 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v9n2p289

Tertiary Anatomy and Physiology, A Barrier for Student Success

2020· article· en· W3014648354 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julian Vitali, Conner Blackmore, Siavash Mortazavi, Ryan S. Anderton

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysiologyObstacleMedical educationPsychologyAnatomyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anatomy and physiology courses are a foundation for numerous degrees, but experience some of the highest failure rates of all undergraduate health science programs (Higgins-Opitz & Tufts, 2014). While interventions have been developed in an attempt to remediate this concerning phenomenon, there is a paucity of evidence to determine the reason anatomy and physiology courses pose such an obstacle to students, and whether there are reliable early determinants for student success in these courses. This review will discuss why this obstacle exists, and the factors that contribute to success and failure in undergraduate anatomy and physiology courses.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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