MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W173632198 · doi:10.21225/d5p01p

Employing a Virtual Workplace Research Team within a Graduate Program

2004· article· en· W173632198 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jo-Anne H. Willment, Heather Mahoney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of University Continuing Education · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationProcess (computing)NarrativeWork (physics)Graduate studentsVirtual teamGraduate educationProject teamPsychologyPedagogyKnowledge managementEngineering ethicsComputer scienceEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the virtual-team process used by graduate students with a faculty guide at the University of Calgary over a 16-month period. Using a narrative-story technique, the article describes the four stages of work that were completed by the virtual team and identifies the unique strengths, pitfalls, and strategies that the team developed and experienced as it worked through the life of the project. The article concludes with learner, faculty, and research benefits of a virtual-team approach and provides recommendations for the use of virtual workplace research teams in adult graduate programs.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of University Continuing EducationSame topicHigher Education Practises and EngagementFrench-language works237,207