Rolling the DICE (Design, Interpret, Compute, Estimate): Interactive Learning of Biostatistics With Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the increasing relevance of statistics in health sciences, teaching styles in higher education are remarkably similar across disciplines: lectures covering the theory and methods, followed by application and computer exercises in given data sets. This often leads to challenges for students in comprehending fundamental statistical concepts essential for medical research. To address these challenges, we propose an engaging learning approach-DICE (design, interpret, compute, estimate)-aimed at enhancing the learning experience of statistics in public health and epidemiology. In introducing DICE, we guide readers through a practical example. Students will work in small groups to plan, generate, analyze, interpret, and communicate their own scientific investigation with simulations. With a focus on fundamental statistical concepts such as sampling variability, error probabilities, and the construction of statistical models, DICE offers a promising approach to learning how to combine substantive medical knowledge and statistical concepts. The materials in this paper, including the computer code, can be readily used as a hands-on tool for both teachers and students.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".