MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1569977059 · doi:10.1080/08841233.2014.990077

Content and Process in a Teaching Workshop for Faculty and Doctoral Students

2015· article· en· W1569977059 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

VenueJournal of Teaching in Social Work · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonSocial workProcess (computing)Face (sociological concept)Higher educationPedagogyWork in processWork (physics)Medical educationPsychologySociologyMathematics educationPolitical scienceMedicineEngineeringComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teaching in higher education is often not addressed in doctoral education, even though many doctoral graduates will eventually teach. This article describes a biweekly teaching workshop, presents pitfalls and challenges that beginning instructors face, and advocates pedagogical training for doctoral students. Led by a well-known social work scholar Lawrence Shulman, the workshops were a place for participants to share their concerns and process solutions. Here, each student’s scenario serves as a backdrop for Dr. Shulman’s explanation of classroom content and process, for which the workshop served as a parallel process. This discussion is framed by the extant literature on preparing higher education instructors during the course of doctoral education.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.257 · 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