MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1485555538 · doi:10.21432/t2001c

Online Education: A Science and Technology Studies Perspective / Éducation en ligne: Perspective des études en science et technologie

2013· article· en· W1485555538 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Tools and Methods
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers UniversityCapilano University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstrumentalismLigneSociologyHumanitiesEssentialismArgument (complex analysis)Perspective (graphical)EpistemologyPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper argues that research into the pedagogical value and potential of new technologies is limited by the implicit philosophical perspectives on technology that such research adopts. These perspectives either imbue technologies with inalienable qualities (essentialism) or posit technology as a neutral means for realizing goals defined by their users (instrumentalism). Such approaches reflect the reigning common sense around the relation of technology and social practice, but they have also been resoundingly critiqued from within the philosophy, history and sociology of technology. It is our argument that the development of more nuanced philosophical perspectives on technology derived from contemporary technology studies can provide fruitful new directions for online education research. After briefly outlining how essentialist and instrumentalist perspectives operate in such research, we overview the key contributions developed in technology studies, suggesting how the latter might enhance research into online education. Cet article soutient que la recherche sur la valeur et le potentiel pédagogiques des nouvelles technologies est limitée par les positions philosophiques qui y sont implicites. Ces positions conduisent soit à attribuer des qualités inaliénables aux technologies (essentialisme), soit à appréhender la technologie comme un moyen neutre pour la réalisation d’objectifs définis par les utilisateurs (instrumentalisme). De telles approches reflètent le sens commun qui prévaut quant à la relation entre la technologie et la pratique sociale. Elles ont cependant aussi été vivement critiquées dans les milieux de la philosophie, de l'histoire et de la sociologie de la technologie. Nous défendons l’idée que l’élaboration de positions philosophiques plus nuancées sur la technologie, issues des études contemporaines de technologie, peut offrir de nouvelles orientations fécondes pour la recherche consacrée à l’éducation en ligne. Après une brève description des positions essentialistes et instrumentistes telles qu’elles se présentent dans ce champ de recherche, nous passerons en revue les principales contributions des études en technologie et suggérons comment ces dernières pourraient rehausser la recherche consacrée à l’éducation en ligne.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.388 · 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