Learning Logs: Reflective Writing and Metacognition in Bioethics Courses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioethics has become a framework for debate throughout the world and, as such, it is an indispensable subject in scientific fields, especially in those related to life sciences. Nowadays, there is a need for its teaching to include not only the identification of ethical problems but also deliberation and critical reflection on those problems in order, among other things, to participate in decision-making processes. The methodological strategies for this are crucial. This article provides an analytical description of the use of learning logs as a tool of reflection and metacognition in bioethics courses, based on the experience of professors at the Faculty of Sciences of the Universidad de la República (Uruguay). An analysis of students’ learning logs shows that this tool promotes complex reflective and self-reflective processes in which the development of skills such as abstraction, argumentation and problematization is manifested in an integrated way.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it