MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283689497 · doi:10.24869/psyd.2022.209

WHAT WE NEED FOR ENCODING OF MEMORY AND EMOTIONAL RECONSOLIDATION

2022· article· en· W4283689497 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sebastian Ertl, Dagmar Steinmair, Pia Patricia Wadowski, Henriette Löffler‐Stastka

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatria Danubina · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMemory consolidationPsychologyEncoding (memory)Cognitive psychologyEmotional memoryNeuroscienceAmygdalaHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is known that an interactive design and good participants' involvement strengthens the motivation to engage in learning processes. Previous research suggests attitude-behaviour consistency with relevance of subjective meaning and interest in learning. This observational study aims to measure the attitude of medical students. METHODS: The connotative meaning and perception of e-learning were explored. A semantic differential scale was given to all students (N=328) of a case-based blended-learning (CBBL) course, 296 medical students were included in this study. RESULTS: The online-survey completion rate was 100%. An exploratory principal components analysis with varimax rotation was performed. Five components could be extracted that explained 47.21% of the total variance. The five components are best described by the following adjectives taken from the item pool: "soft, emotional, playful", "clear and organised", "vigorous and serious", "vivid and outgoing", "economical and introverted". An additional qualitative analysis revealed relevant positive connotations ascribed to e-learning by the students: freedom in time and space for learning, interdisciplinary approach and communication, playfulness and clear, structured procedure. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that a specific set of aspects is essential for students to feel comfortable and affect-cognitively engaged to learn and gain the best exam grades.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatria DanubinaSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207