MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1814213537 · doi:10.14742/ajet.1203

Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology

2008· article· en· W1814213537 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Educational Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Systems Theories and Implementation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsICTSEducational researchSociologyEducational technologyInformation and Communications TechnologyThrough-the-lens meteringEducation theoryEngineering ethicsEpistemologyComputer scienceManagement scienceHigher educationLens (geology)PedagogyPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<span>This paper describes how activity theory (AT) and its principle of contradictions may be relied on to guide research in educational technology. The paper begins with a theoretical overview of AT and of its principle of contradictions. It follows with a synthesis of studies that have used AT as a lens to study information and communication technologies (ICTs) in educational contexts. We analyse educational technology studies that have focused on contradictions in terms of their underlying assumptions, research questions, approaches to analysis, findings, and implications. The lens of AT and contradictions provides a versatile tool to inquire into various aspects of educational technology use, taking into account individual and institutional perspectives as well as evolution over time. AT and its principle of contradictions provide insights into how transformation may occur with use of ICTs in educational contexts.</span>

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.355 · 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