Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital first-person testimonies have become increasingly more available and utilized to engage students. However, with its increase, digital first-person testimonies are facing significant ethical and pedagogical challenges, especially within the field of Holocaust Education which has historically relied on survivor testimony (Ballis, et. al., 2025; Marcus, et. al., 2021; McGregor, et. al., 2022; Tirosh & Mikel-Arieli, 2023; Traum, et. al., 2015; Walden, 2021). With the era of living survivors rapidly coming to an end, understanding the role of digital first-person testimonies within Holocaust Education is paramount. This article summarizes the work of a larger empirical study on the use of Virtual Interactive Holocaust Survivor Testimony (VIHST) in place of live Holocaust survivor testimony at the National Holocaust Centre and Museum (UK). The overview of the findings answers two research questions concerning the implementation of VIHST at the National Holocaust Centre and Museum (UK): 1) How do stakeholders perceive the value, utility, and challenges of learning from and with VIHST? 2) What are the interactional forces shaping pedagogical decisions around the use of VIHST in museums?
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".