MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1569840151

Assessing for work-integrated learning experiences: A pre-service teacher perspective

2011· article· en· W1569840151 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jeanne Allen, Deborah Peach

Bibliographic record

VenueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education and Employability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of South AfricaUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of DhakaUniversity of SurreyUniversity of Technology SydneyUniversity of New EnglandSimon Fraser UniversityMurdoch UniversityMassey UniversityUniversity of JohannesburgCentral Queensland UniversityAuckland University of Technology, New ZealandAustralian Catholic UniversityUniversity of Waikato
KeywordsPracticumPerspective (graphical)StakeholderContext (archaeology)PedagogyWork (physics)Task (project management)Service-learningService (business)SociologyPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer scienceBusinessMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A critical aspect of the debate about work integrated learning in the university context is the blurring of boundaries and responsibilities in terms of student learning. In an Australian pre-service teacher education program this blurring of boundaries is apparent in stakeholder tensions about the nature and role of assessment during the practicum. In the study reported in this paper, students responded positively to the content of assessment tasks but maintained that their efforts to implement the associated planning in the workplace were stymied because of disparate understandings between university and school staff about the purpose of the task. (Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2011,

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.367
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.114 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia)Same topicHigher Education and EmployabilityFrench-language works237,207