MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1656837960 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i7.1023

Pointillist, cyclical, and overlapping: Multidimensional facets of time in online education

2011· article· en· W1656837960 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pekka Ihanainen, John W. Moravec

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineContext (archaeology)PersonalizationComputer scienceSociologyMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A linear, sequential time conception based on in-person meetings and pedagogical activities is not enough for those who practice and hope to enhance contemporary education, particularly where online interactions are concerned. In this article, we propose a new model for understanding time in pedagogical contexts. Conceptual parts of the model will be employed as a “cultural technology” to help us relate to evolving phenomena, both physical and virtual. We label these constructs as pointillist, cyclical, and overlapping times. Pointillist time and learning takes place in “dots” of actions that consist of small, discrete moments (e.g., tweeting). Producing, receiving, and sharing ideas in this context are separate points in each actor’s timeline. Cyclical time and learning emerges from intensive periods, which are highly visible in online forums. This construct reveals itself through interactions that often exist in multiple online environments. Overlapping time and learning involves various configurations of linear, pointillist, and cyclical layers, which are mainly evident through the simultaneous uses of social communication technologies. Pointillist, cyclical, and overlapping time constructs enable new orientations for conceptualizing time in pedagogy. In this article we also introduce de-, re-, and en- modes of these pedagogies that connect with approaches to meet the needs of learners for individualization, personalization, and cyborgization.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.015
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207