How to Effectively and Efficiently Communicate Research Results? Experimental Study on the Influence of Interactivity and Presentation form on Knowledge Transfer and Cognitive Activity
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
When it comes to presenting research results, the usual approach is to use PowerPoint or similar slide applications, or to opt for alternative presentation tools. A central question is how well the knowledge is transferred and to what extent the target audience is addressed emotionally. Based on a 2*2 factorial design, the effects of presentation form (PowerPoint slide presentation vs. explainer video) and interaction (no interaction vs. interaction by means of additional questions on the topic) were investigated. Overall, the presentation factor is more important for learning success than the interaction factor and explainer videos perform significantly better than the PowerPoint presentation. This applies to the objective and subjective learning success, but also to the emotional appeal and the increase in engagement, interest and other cognitive activities. The effects of the interaction factor are relatively low, achieving minor improvements in combination with the PowerPoint presentation, while no statistically significant and relevant effects were found in combination with the explainer video.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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