The novel ‘syncretion’ approach to learning gross anatomy with clay models: Is it a plausible alternative for learning the muscles in the anterior forearm?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, dissection has been the method of choice for learning gross anatomy at the undergraduate level. However, rising problems in medical curriculums, such as reduced hours dedicated to anatomy education, has yielded a plethora of research in alternatives. A novel approach to learning gross anatomy, called ‘syncretion,’ has yet to be proven efficacious. The purpose of the current study is to evaluate student performance on a “bell‐ringer” examination following exposure to a syncretic or dissection model of the anterior forearm. Students will be randomly assigned into three test groups: the syncretion group will reconstruct, or build up, the anterior forearm using pre‐formed clay representations of the 8 muscles; the dissection group will “dissect” through a fully‐assembled clay model of the anterior forearm with a scalpel to visualize deeper muscles; and, the control group will learn the 8 muscles without a model. All groups will complete pre‐ and post‐tests to evaluate spatial identification, spatial reasoning and comprehension of function of musculature and osteology. It is hypothesized that the change in scores from pre‐test to post‐test in the syncretion group will mirror those exhibited by the dissection group. Following this, it is also thought that the change in scores in the two treatment groups will be greater than that of the control group, due to the added benefit of a tactile model. Grant Funding Source : Western Graduate Scholarship
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".