Public Response to “the MOOC Movement” in China: Examining the Time Series of Microblogging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>In China, microblogging is an extremely popular activity and is proving to be an effective mechanism to gauge perceptions about social phenomena. Between 2010 and 2015 Sina Weibo, China’s largest microblogging website, generated 95,015 postings from 62,074 users referencing the term massive open online courses (MOOCs), a method of online course delivery popularized in North America that has spread globally. Time series analyses revealed distinct patterns in the volume of postings during a four-year period, and subsequently by month, by week, and by the time of day. The volume of postings during the week, for example, peaked on Monday and declined daily to a low point on Saturday. Relative to maximizing learner engagement, the findings may provide insight to parties who deliver MOOCs to employ or test strategies on timing (i.e., time of year to offer/not offer a MOOC, time of week to release/not release new material, time of day to schedule/not schedule chat sessions). The paper also serves to demonstrate a mechanism to retrieve big data from social media sources, otherwise underutilized in educational research.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".