Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents the experiences of a networked community of nurses who have expertise in heart care, and whose aim is to produce knowledge useful for medical practitioners, people with a heart condition and their families. The nurses built knowledge in collaboration, shared their practices from a distance, and produced an instrument for the benefit of the population. A constructivist theoretical approach was applied through a multimethodology integrating ethnographic and discourse analysis techniques. Results suggest that the nurses engaged in a higher order level of conceptual change. Introduction To address a long standing heart disease crisis in the Canadian health, the most frequent cause of death among Canadians, I conducted research in collaboration with the OIIQ-Order of Nurses of Quebec and a number of partners (hospitals and health centres) and the CEFRIO--French Speaking Centre of Informatization of Organisations with the goal of building a networked community of nurses. During a six month period, thirty three nurses from the Quebec, Ontario, and New Brunswick volunteered to discuss online their practices and knowledge about cardiology Objective The objective of this research was twofold: (1) To engage nurses in active collective reflection in order to address health system problems related to cardiology, and (2) To verify whether a participatory community building strategy enabled by networked argumentation would lead the nurses to build knowledge collaboratively. I use the term networked argumentation to describe the reflective process through which conditional structures (If-Then lead to conclusions in online conversations. According to Grize (1991) all conversational activity should be seen as argumentation. The research was designed using quantitative and qualitative techniques to assess the pertinence and adequacy of conferencing systems and a participatory community building strategy for fostering in-depth thinking and higher order collaborative learning. Theoretical Framework When people participate in electronic conferences they have written conversations, they argue online. These conversations have neither the formal structure of essay writing nor the informal character of personal conversations. The literature, although scarce, has highlighted that online conversation allows participants to reflect more consistently about their ideas because of the editing process that is involved in active reading and writing (Harasim, 1990; Bruer, 1994, Scardamalia, and Bereiter, 1994). Asynchronous text-based online participation can induce partners to engage in collaborative learning and knowledge building. How? I hypothesized that applying the strategy of participatory community building and the Knowledge Forum [1] conferencing system scaffolding tool would both support collaborative in-depth understanding leading to conceptual change and knowledge building. A constructivist view of conceptual change can be understood in terms of the adaptation process and the role of metacognition. Knowledge acquisition supposes an active process of conceptual assimilation and accommodation leading to adaptation to the social environment (Piaget, 1959). A new adapted path of understanding through recursive comprehension and interpretation is necessarily the result of a conceptual change. Metacognition is an awareness of our own cognitive processes (or a vigilant state in which we are able to understand and transform concepts and ideas). Constructivism points to the difference between succeeding when performing an action and understanding it (Piaget, 1974). A person can succeed in identifying a problem and structuring it through language but to understand it supposes an awareness of its premises and conclusions. Conceptual change, then, is an intentional and reflective problem-solving metacognitive process in which previously held concepts and ideas lead to new--or transformed--ones. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".