Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article outlines the use of action research in a project that was set up as part of the Open University’s (OU) response to major curriculum change in the United Kingdom. It describes the activities of our project group, our findings, and the wider implications for staff, students, and institutions of the use of action research projects. Cet article donne un aperçu d’un programme en recherche action qui a débuté à la Open University en Écosse et qui a été élargi pour aborder la question des intérêts stratégiques de la UK Open University. L’analyse de l’impact de cette recherche action en montre les bienfaits pour le personnel et les étudiants et démontre comment, si alignée avec les objectifs institutionnels, elle peut devenir une riche ressource pour le développement du personnel, le développement éducationnel et le développement du curriculum, ce qui se traduit en un apport évident aux expériences d’apprentissage des étudiants.
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 | 0.312 | 0.269 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
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".