Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este trabajo presenta un estudio descriptivo que comparo formas de aprendizaje de estudiantes en dos ambientes: un grupo de estudiantes estaba en cursos «face-a-face», y el otro grupo en cursos de Educacion a Distancia. Los metodos usados enfatizan el valor y la dificultad de usar tecnicas cualitativas para investigar el aprendizaje de estudiantes. Los resultados revelaron evidencias de distintas formas de aprendizaje en los dos grupos. Pero, no hubieron diferencias significantes en el nivel de la comprension del material. Resumo Este trabalho introduz um estudo descritivo que comparou o enfoque de aprendizagem de estudantes em dois grupos: um grupo de estudantes participou de um curso de corpo-presente, e um outro grupo participou de um curso a distância. Os metodos utilizados enfatizam o valor e a dificuldade de usar tecnicas qualitativas em pesquisas de aprendizado dos estudantes. Os resultados revelaram evidencias de diferentes enfoques para o aprendizado nos dois grupos. Porem, nao existiram significantes diferencas no nivel de compreensao do conteudo.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".