Audience and Presenter Comparison of Live Web‐Based Lectures and Traditional Classroom Lectures During the COVID‐19 Pandemic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to assess participants' and presenters' perceptions of a live web-based lecture series in comparison to traditional in-person lectures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A virtual lecture series was organized by the---from March 25th until June 3rd of 2020. Twenty-five postgraduate prosthodontics programs and 81 presenters participated. Two surveys were developed and distributed to the audience (N = 330) and the presenters (N = 81). Follow-up emails were sent one week, three weeks, and four weeks after the initial email survey to encourage its completion. The data were analyzed descriptively. One-way ANOVA (p = 0.05), followed by a post hoc test, were used to compare the response percentages among the different generations of presenters and participants. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of participants, and 65% of presenters, completed the survey. More than 96% of participants and presenters were satisfied with the lecture series. Seventy-nine percent of audience members felt that the live web-based lectures were as effective as traditional classroom lectures, or more effective; 32% of presenters agreed. Millennial audience members had significantly (p = 0.0028) more negative responses than the other generations. CONCLUSION: Participants have more positive perceptions of web-based lectures than presenters.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it