Bibliographic record
Abstract
What role can online communities play in meeting the informal learning needs of a professional association? This article presents the results of an interpretive study of the experiences of coordinators of Alberta Community Adult Learning Councils who participated in an online community of practice designed to support informal workplace learning. Through active participation and peripheral “lurking,” new¬comers were oriented into the skills and culture of the practice, and experienced practitioners gained new insights into their own professional identities and the meaning of their work. Telling their stories helped to develop not only identity as individual practitioners, but also served to reconstruct the identity of the collective community on an ongoing basis. Motivations to participate included an opportunity to learn new skills and work practices, a means of social and professional connection to colleagues, and a mechanism to reduce the isolation that was inherent in the job function and geographical location. The role of the online moderator was identified as critical in sustaining the online community over an extended period and enhancing the learning function. Quels rôles les communautés de pratique en ligne peuvent-elles jouer pour répondre aux besoins d’apprentissage informel d’une association professionnelle? L’article présente les résultats d’une étude basée sur les expériences de coordonnateurs des Conseils de l’apprentissage adulte communautaire d’Alberta (Alberta Community Adult Learning Councils) qui ont participé à une communauté de pratique en ligne conçue pour soutenir l’apprentissage informel en milieu de travail. Par le biais de la communauté virtuelle, les nouveaux arrivants, grâce à leur participation active et à l’observation, ont acquis des compétences et des connaissances sur la culture de la pratique, alors que les praticiens d’expérience y ont acquis de nouvelles perspectives sur leur propre identité professionnelle et sur la signification de leur travail. Pour ces derniers, le fait de raconter leur histoire a aidé non seulement à développer leur identité individuelle en tant que praticiens, mais a aussi servi à reconstruire l’identité collective de la communauté sur une base continue. Les participants étaient motivés à participer à la communauté, car elle était une occasion d’apprendre de nouvelles compétences et de nouvelles pratiques de travail, un moyen d’entrer en contact socialement et professionnellement avec les collègues et un mécanisme pour diminuer l’isolation inhérente à la fonction du travail et à la localisation géographique. Le rôle du modérateur en ligne s’est avéré critique pour maintenir la communauté sur une longue période et pour favoriser la fonction d’apprentissage.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".