MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1512587290

What are your thoughts on current and future trends in the evaluation of workplace learning

2014· article· en· W1512587290 on OpenAlexaff
Tina Grant, Judy Harris, Mary Beth Lakin, Lisa Sax Mahoney, Anne Murphy, Ruth Whittaker

Bibliographic record

VenuePLA Inside Out: An International Journal on Theory, Research and Practice in Prior Learning Assessment · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDimension (graph theory)Work (physics)Experiential learningPublic relationsPolitical sciencePedagogyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We asked six colleagues, all of whom have been involved in PLA/RPL (prior learning assessment/recognition of prior learning) for many years, “What are your thoughts on current and future trends in the evaluation of workplace learning?” We invite you to share your thoughts with us and our PLAIO readers about your experiences evaluating workplace learning.  Please also let us know about any questions you have regarding this dimension of PLA/RPL work. Please log in and post a comment.

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 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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.384 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLA Inside Out: An International Journal on Theory, Research and Practice in Prior Learning AssessmentSame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207