MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Learning Landscape

2006· book-chapter· en· W15037915 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProfessional Masters Programs Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffordanceVariety (cybernetics)Context (archaeology)Knowledge managementComputer scienceConceptual frameworkWork (physics)Mathematics educationPedagogyEngineeringSociologyPsychologyHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adoption of ePortfolio tools in higher education has been implemented in individual courses, departments, schools, and across institutions to demonstrate evidence of more authentic student work, show student progress over time, and represent collections of best work. New technologies have enhanced the learning affordances of ePortfolios to include its usefulness as a tool to support integration, synthesis, and re-use of formal and informal learning experiences. The challenge for educators is to develop new pedagogical approaches to encourage students to recognize and extend the value of ePortfolio software beyond simple course applications and outside the context of their undergraduate education. This chapter describes the learning landscape model, a conceptual framework which promotes a view of “learning” that supersedes the rigid structure of degree outlines and requirements by taking advantage of a variety of technologies to incorporate overlapping experiences through social networking among faculty, mentors, peers, and employers and resources.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.288 · 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