User experience and the influence on the evaluation of information presentation in an online brachial plexus module
Bibliographic record
Abstract
E‐learning through computer modules is a growing trend amongst anatomical educators. However, little research has explored the translation of design components between users of different experience levels. This study explored the role of prior knowledge and its effect on user rating of an online learning module. Due to the brachial plexus’ complexity, difficulty in learning and the continued application within the medical field, a three‐dimensional model of the brachial plexus and surrounding structures was created. This model was integrated into two interactive interfaces demonstrating equivalent information in distinct presentation modes, guided and self‐guided. For a distribution of low (LK) and high (HK) prior knowledge participants, recruitment occurred from undergraduate and resident populations. Pre‐test scores verified participants as high or low prior knowledge. It is hypothesized that HK users prefer self‐guided module characteristics while LK users prefer the direction inherent in the guided module. It is expected that all users will show improvement between pre‐ and post‐test scores, and greater improvement will correspond with the higher rated module. Grant Funding Source : Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship in Science and Technology
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 | 0.012 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".