MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016159070 · doi:10.3126/ojn.v9i2.28410

Structured Quiz for Teaching of CVM Stages to the Undergraduate Orthodontic Students

2019· article· en· W3016159070 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Azeem, Arfan Ul Haq, Zubair Hassan Awaisi, Ambreen Afzal Ehsan

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthodontic Journal of Nepal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Research and COVID-19
Canadian institutionsCollège Montmorency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)MedicineSignificant differenceDentistryMedical educationMathematics educationOrthodonticsPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: There are several methods of teaching out of which didactic lectures and student centered lecturesa re commonly practiced all over the world in medical and dental schools. The aim of the study was to find out the impact of introducing structured quiz as a method for teaching of cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) stages to the undergraduate orthodontic students. Materials & Method: Current study was conducted on 30 undergraduate orthodontic students of final year. Duration of Study was 2018-19. Initial MCQs test was followed by the lecture and hands-on on quiz pattern and this was followed by the MCQs final-tests. The scores were calculated and presented in form of mean. Student paired t test was applied to compare the initial-test quiz scores with final-test quiz scores. Result: Results showed significant differences between initial-test and final-test which showed a significant improvement. Conclusion: The introduction of structured quiz as a method for teaching of cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) stages resulted in significant improvement in the knowledge of undergraduate orthodontic students.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthodontic Journal of NepalSame topicDental Research and COVID-19French-language works237,207