The benefits of applying the lightning talk in child and youth care education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child and youth care instructors often aspire to prepare students for unforeseen circumstances in the field, including circumstances that may require spontaneous advocacy and public speaking skills in various settings, such as an interdisciplinary case conference or a plan of care meeting. We suggest that one way of contributing to these goals is the pedagogy of the lightning talk. A lightning talk can be defined as a short (three minutes), time-limited, oral presentation on a particular subject without the use of supporting materials, such as Power Point slides, notes, an electronic device, or audience engagement, so as to simulate a practice context that was unexpected and for which the practitioner has no opportunity to plan or prepare (Jean-Pierre et al., 2020). In this article, we will share the main lessons learned from a study that examined the learning experiences and processes of the pedagogy of the lightning talk at a Canadian metropolitan university in two child and youth care undergraduate courses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".