MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Structured self‐directed learning using whole‐body dissection

2012· article· en· W3177025451 on OpenAlexaff
Kuo‐Hsing Kuo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical knowledgeDissection (medical)Human bodyHuman anatomyMedical educationMedicinePsychologyRadiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decreased use of whole‐body dissection has led to variations in students’ anatomical knowledge therefore hindering student learning during their clinical years, particularly those who continue on to surgical disciplines. To address the diverse needs of anatomical knowledge we piloted a project allowing students to self direct their learning according to their clinical interests. In the design of structured self‐directed learning, anatomical knowledge is grouped into two levels. General knowledge is aimed at training in the medical disciplines, thus encompassing surface anatomy and associated structures for clinical physical examination. Advanced knowledge is aimed at training in the surgical disciplines, thus learning anatomical structures encountered during invasive procedures. General knowledge is obtained by adopting mini tutorials utilizing pre‐dissected human cadavers and advanced knowledge through whole‐body dissection. Final assessment was conducted using spot examination. Results indicate that structured self‐directed learning is able to address the diverse needs of learning anatomical knowledge. A large scale investigation is needed to confirm the impact on students’ performances in the clinical setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207