Impact of transitioning to an online course – A report from the ESTRO gyn teaching course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2020, the ESTRO course on image-guided radiotherapy and chemotherapy in gynaecological cancer was converted into an online version due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper describes the change process and evaluates the impact on participants compared with previous live courses. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The 2019 live course contained 41 h of educational content, comprising 33 h of synchronous activities (lectures, interactive activities, videos) and 8 h of homework (contouring, dose planning). For the online course, the lectures were provided as pre-course material (11 mandatory, 22 optional). Contouring/dose planning homework was unchanged. The synchronous sessions were reconfigured as six 2-hour webinars (total educational content ~38 h).Participant numbers/characteristics, engagement and satisfaction for six live courses and the online course were compared. RESULTS: Participant numbers for the online and live courses were similar (90 vs. mean 96). There were more participants from outside Europe (28% vs. mean 18%) and more non-doctors (47% vs. mean 33%). Proportion of participants responding to the pre-course questionnaire was similar (77% vs. mean 78%) but post-course questionnaire response was lower (62% vs. mean 92%).43% participants viewed ≥75% of mandatory lectures before the webinars. 86% viewed the optional lectures. Submissions of contouring and dose planning homework was higher (contouring 77%-90% vs. 56%-69%, dose planning 74%-89% vs. 29%-57%).96% (47/49) participants rated the online course as Excellent (43%) or Good (53%). Overall satisfaction was similar (4.4 vs. mean 4.6). CONCLUSION: Participant satisfaction and engagement with the online course remained high despite less contact time with faculty.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".