MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543571998

Participation in Peer-Led Academic Support Services: One Adaptation of a Natural Sciences Peer Learning Model to Enrichment in the Humanities.

2014· article· en· W1543571998 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stephen C. Cheng, Susan A. Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Online (University of Wollongong) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersUniversity of Regina
KeywordsThe artsAdaptation (eye)Context (archaeology)Peer supportPsychologyPeer learningPedagogyMedical educationMathematics educationPolitical scienceMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supplemental instruction (SI) has proven highly effective at improving success rates in high-risk first and second-year courses, in part because peer-led SI sessions inculcate best-practice study skills in a specific learning context which provides opportunities for skill mastery. A successful SI program in the Faculty of Science at the University of Regina, Canada, was adapted to support high-risk classes in the Faculty of Arts. A number of challenges around student participation in SI sessions for arts emerged. This paper provides a brief case study of the adaptation and outlines factors which impact student participation in academic support sessions.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.343
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Online (University of Wollongong)Same topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207