MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378640429 · doi:10.2196/47394

Enhancing Learning About Epidemiological Data Analysis Using R for Graduate Students in Medical Fields With Jupyter Notebook: Classroom Action Research

2023· article· en· W4378640429 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ponlagrit Kumwichar

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationGraduate studentsAction researchAction (physics)EpidemiologyMedical educationPsychologyComputer sciencePedagogyMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Graduate students in medical fields must learn about epidemiology and data analysis to conduct their research. R is a software environment used to develop and run packages for statistical analysis; it can be challenging for students to learn because of compatibility with their computers and problems with package installations. Jupyter Notebook was used to run R, which enhanced the graduate students' ability to learn epidemiological data analysis by providing an interactive and collaborative environment that allows for more efficient and effective learning. OBJECTIVE: This study collected class reflections from students and their lecturer in the class "Longitudinal Data Analysis Using R," identified problems that occurred, and illustrated how Jupyter Notebook can solve those problems. METHODS: The researcher analyzed issues encountered in the previous class and devised solutions using Jupyter Notebook. These solutions were then implemented and applied to a new group of students. Reflections from the students were regularly collected and documented in an electronic form. The comments were then thematically analyzed and compared to those of the prior cohort. RESULTS: Improvements that were identified included the ease of using Jupyter R for data analysis without needing to install packages, increased student questioning due to curiosity, and students having the ability to immediately use all code functions. After using Jupyter Notebook, the lecturer could stimulate interest more effectively and challenge students. Furthermore, they highlighted that students responded to questions. The student feedback shows that learning R with Jupyter Notebook was effective in stimulating their interest. Based on the feedback received, it can be inferred that using Jupyter Notebook to learn R is an effective approach for equipping students with an all-encompassing comprehension of longitudinal data analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Jupyter Notebook can improve graduate students' learning experience for epidemiological data analysis by providing an interactive and collaborative environment that is not affected by compatibility issues with different operating systems and computers.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.007

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 head0.680
GPT teacher head0.657
Teacher spread0.022 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207