MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159922431 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.9108

14. By Students, For Students: Adapting Inquiry-Based Learning for Undergraduate Human Anatomy Education in a Large Class Setting

2016· article· en· W3159922431 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ralph T.T. Yeung, Wyanne Law, Lauren Anstey

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnthusiasmPresentation (obstetrics)Class (philosophy)Context (archaeology)FacilitationIdentification (biology)Inquiry-based learningMathematics educationSubject (documents)PsychologyPedagogyComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceLibrary scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a well-documented educational paradigm that has been adopted for the teaching of various subjects. In the interest of finding novel methods of teaching a traditionally lecture-based subject, IBL was adopted into an undergraduate human anatomy course in 2009 as a project called Inquiry 216. This project allows students to engage in a group-oriented and open-ended research project culminating in a free-format presentation. Since its inception, Inquiry 216 has undergone multiple revisions in methodology, with particular attention paid to formalizing the role of student facilitation, encouraging graduates of Inquiry 216 to become facilitators, and the evaluation and subsequent improvement of IBL in the context of Inquiry 216. A chronological account of conception, issue identification, objective and subjective evaluation and improvement of Inquiry 216 to its present model is illustrated, along with a specific emphasis on the benefits of student-based facilitation. We suggest that successful development, evaluation and improvement of IBL as a parallel to didactic education can further enhance students’ potential and enthusiasm for learning across various subjects.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.405 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207