MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202305374 · doi:10.1101/2021.09.30.462419

Keeping students connected and engaged in a wet-lab research experience during a time of social distancing via mobile devices and video conferencing software

2021· preprint· en· W3202305374 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Shamoon‐Pour, Caitlin J. Light, Megan Fegley

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Learning in Education
Canadian institutionsImmersion (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTroubleshootingVideoconferencingSocial distanceComputer scienceMultimediaProcess (computing)ZoomMobile deviceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)World Wide WebEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two major COVID-19 pandemic challenges presented for in-person instruction included adhering to social distancing guidelines and accommodating remote learners who were temporarily isolated or permanently participating from afar. At Binghamton University, our First-year Research Immersion (FRI) program was challenged with providing students with a wet lab course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE), an intense hands-on experience that emphasized student teamwork, lab protocol development, iteration, troubleshooting and other elements of the process of science that could not be replicated in a fully remote environment. We developed an innovative technology approach to maximize all students’ connection to the lab research experience utilizing dedicated mobile devices (iPod Touch) and video conferencing software (Zoom) to synchronously connect remote learners to in-person learners, peer mentors and instructors in our FRI research labs. In this way, despite limited lab capacities and fluctuating remote learning populations, we were able to connect remote learners to their peers and mentors in real-time and give them responsibilities that allowed them to be engaged and feel like meaningful participants in the research process. Although our students reported a preference for in-person labs, they noted this hybrid model was better than other traditionally employed remote-learning lab options. We believe lessons learned here can be applied to improve access to research in all situations and allow us to be prepared for other catastrophic disruptions to the educational system.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMobile Learning in EducationFrench-language works237,207