MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293216994 · doi:10.1002/aet2.10793

Educator's blueprint: A how‐to guide for creating a high‐quality infographic

2022· article· en· W4293216994 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Gottlieb, Andrew M. Ibrahim, Lynsey J. Martin, Yusuf Yılmaz, Teresa M. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueAEM Education and Training · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfographicBlueprintQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceArtVisual artsPhilosophyEpistemologyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infographics are a valuable tool for increasing knowledge translation and dissemination. They can be used to simplify complex topics and supplement the written text of a study. This Educator's Blueprint paper will provide 10 strategies for creating high-quality infographics. These strategies include selecting appropriate content, defining the target audience, considering the format, selecting the software, using consistent font and color schemes, increasing image utilization, ensuring a consistent flow of ideas, avoiding copyright and HIPAA violations, getting feedback from others, and utilizing effective dissemination strategies. These strategies will help guide educators to increase their ability to create more effective infographics.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.328 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAEM Education and TrainingSame topicDigital Storytelling and EducationFrench-language works237,207