MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4387658977 · doi:10.1111/drev.10265

President's Letter

2014· article· en· W4387658977 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueDesign Management Review · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCultural Industries and Urban Development
Établissements canadiensAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésStrategistManagementLibrary scienceResidenceSociologyComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The silos and conventions of college and of primary and secondary education have not evolved fundamentally in hundreds of years. It is no secret that the education system is under great pressure to change. But numerous obstacles remain at every level, from tortuous academic publishing requirements for tenure to unreasonable union demands to paralyzed legislators. A recent McKinsey paper points out that “only six in ten students at four-year institutions are graduating within six years today. Most employers say graduates lack the skills they need. Tuition has risen far faster than inflation or household earnings for two decades”1 (a painful truth I am experiencing firsthand). This is leaving many with tremendous debt and even more questions about the value of education in the twenty-first century. Time to redesign. The recent excitement around massive open online courses (MOOCs) has yielded little beyond hype at this point—with a few notable exceptions, like Salman Khan's Khan Academy, which has transformed classroom learning by delivering video lectures at home and using the classroom for interactive coaching and workshop-style applied learning that makes teachers more valuable and the peer-to-peer learning connection more personal. (That sounds like an interesting recipe for design and business education, as well.) Underneath his thousands of online lectures is a beautiful software platform that some courageous school systems are now using to track progress and improve learning performance. A perfect combination of the promise of high-tech, high-touch experiences we have always heard about. This issue is dedicated to those brave souls who are taking on the establishment, overturning industrial-era assumptions, and challenging us all to become a more open and creative society capable of placing our children ahead of our biases. We have the good fortune to hear from some global innovators, including Arnold Wasserman, who has been working with governments from Singapore to Colombia to make education more creative. We also hear about some important work by the Design Learning Network (which we can all join) and about how some traditional schools are using design thinking to drive continuous improvement. We spoke to innovators at Harvard Business School, as well as the Olin College of Engineering, which boasts a 99 percent graduation rate, nearly twice that of most of its engineering peers. This challenge has driven DMI to embark upon a research program to map the future needs of design management and design thinking and graduate design education through a series of conversations with students and thought leaders from business, engineering, and education. These conversations began in 2013 in North America and will continue in 2014 and beyond with workshops around the world. It has been exciting to see the innovation developing globally from the sustained experiments at Toronto's Rotman School of Management, at Stanford's d.school, at Finland's Aalto University, and from newer players, such as Philadelphia University. The University of Cincinnati continues to offer its multi-layered programs, while such art schools as The New School and the California College of the Arts have designed their own unique DMBA curricula. The role of employers in redesigning professional education is already attracting huge investments by global corporations, and the need for schools to rethink their business models has become urgent. To quote McKinsey's André Dua, “The cost–value equation will shift so rapidly in the years ahead, and employers will develop so great a stake in the new system they help design, that millions of students will probably flourish without ever setting foot on traditional campuses.”2 This is why DMI is working with business schools and our global community to design the kind of education we need for the future. We invite you to sign up to join or host a conversation by emailing me at [email protected]. I would like to thank the entire team that has contributed to the DMI:futurED research and dialogue, especially our co-chairs: Craig Vogel, associate dean at the University of Cincinnati; Heather Fraser of Rotman DesignWorks and Vuka Innnovation; and Dianne Hardin, MDES candidate at the University of Cincinnati.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,193
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,310
Écart entre enseignants0,238 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle