It’s not Possible to be a Sage on the Cyberstage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few university entry-to-practice professional health programmes utilize the broad range of computer technology to enhance student learning. One Canadian Occupational Therapy Programme is an exception and is unique in its breadth and depth of usage. In this paper we present as learning tools, WebCT Vista, YouTube™, Skype™, digital video recordings, iClicker®, Second Life®, ePortfolios, wikis, blogs and Facebook and discuss the way in which these computer technologies supports entry-to-practice preparedness for practice. We provide examples of creative use by students and academics. Computer technology is used in innovative approaches to learning, preventing teacher-centred ‘sage of the stage’ grandstanding but, rather, requiring students to focus on constructing their learning through the personal involvement that is required when computer technology is exploited for this purpose. The benefits of computer technology, in educational terms, are increased collaboration with peers and health care colleagues and increased active engagement in the learning process.
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 | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".