MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1485895598

Re-theorising the recognition of prior learning

2006· book· en· W1485895598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Per Andersson, Judy Harris, Wales

Bibliographic record

VenueNIACE eBooks · 2006
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningPoliticsDisciplineCurriculumPower (physics)SociologyArt historyArtPedagogySocial sciencePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foreword Information on authors Chapter 1 Introduction and overview of chapters Judy Harris Chapter 2 Different faces and functions of RPL: an assessment perspective Per Andersson Chapter 3 Questions of knowledge and curriculum in the recognition of prior learning Judy Harris Chapter 4 A disciplinary-specific approach to the recognition of prior informal experience in adult pedagogy: 'rpl' as opposed to 'RPL' Mignonne Breier Chapter 5 Portfolio-based assessment of prior learning: a cat and mouse chase after invisible criteria Yael Shalem and Carola Steinberg Chapter 6 RPL and the disengaged learner: the need for new starting points Roslyn Cameron Chapter 7 Beyond Galileo's telescope: situated knowledge and the recognition or prior learning Elana Michelson Chapter 8 Using critical discourse analysis to illuminate power and knowledge in RPL Helen Peters Chapter 9 The politics of difference: non/recognition of the foreign credentials and prior work experience of immigrant professionals in Canada and Sweden Shibao Guo and Per Andersson Chapter 10 RPL: an emerging and contested practice in South Africa Ruksana Osman Chapter 11 'Tools of mediation': an historical-cultural approach to RPL Linda Cooper Chapter 12 Vocations, 'graduateness' and the recognition of prior learning Leesa Wheelahan Chapter 13 Recognising prior learning: what do we know? Helen Pokorny Chapter 14 Reconfiguring RPL and its assumptions: a complexified view Tara Fenwick. Chapter 15 Understanding the transformative dimension of RPL Susan Whittaker, Ruth Whittaker and Paula Cleary Chapter 16 Endword Michael Young Index.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.062
Scholarly communication0.0170.028
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations126
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNIACE eBooksSame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207