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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current Web‐based training (WBT) is based upon systematic research and experience with strategies for improving learning and instruction, beginning in the early part of the 20th century and continuing to the present. Use of the World Wide Web for delivery may improve access to training, but the effectiveness of the resulting training and the usefulness of the outcomes is chiefly dependent upon the quality of the instructional design and the completeness of the support package provided. Factors that impact WBT quality, and which must be addressed in design and implementation processes, include assessment and accommodation of trainees' previous learning experiences, training expectations, and overall readiness for new training; availability and familiarity to trainees and trainers of appropriate delivery technologies; presence of technical support; opportunities for interaction with the trainer and other trainees; the preparation and practices of trainers; corporate support and recognition; trainees' capacities and expectations for independent and self‐directed learning; and the presence of relevant, quality online training materials. WBT creates changes and may thus produce stresses in the training environment, as well as efficiencies. Reduction in travel and subsistence requirements means cost savings, but may also be seen by trainees as depriving them of opportunities to meet with each other face‐to‐face; self‐pacing means trainees may proceed independently and at their own rate, but also that group support may be reduced (unless a cohort model is adopted); use of the Internet for delivery of training materials may foster trainee independence, but may also result in confusion for some trainees used to print materials and a paced, group delivery model; trainers no longer have to lecture as materials (always high quality, and often multimedia‐based) are prepared in advance, but some may resent the loss of their role at center‐stage; trainees are more responsible for their own learning, which may reflect the autonomy of adult responsibility common in the other areas of their lives, but this may be different from the expectations of some for how training should be conducted. To achieve the efficiencies and advantages well‐designed and ‐managed WBT may offer, adopting organizations must make adjustments. Managers may need to show concrete support for online training by permitting trainees to use corporate resources during company time, to assure access to adequate bandwidth. Trainers may need to master new skills and be willing to adopt new roles less concerned with information dissemination and more involved with meeting individual trainees' expressed needs. Trainees themselves may also need new skills, and may need to exercise more independence and self‐direction in their learning. As technologies become more available to support WBT, and as more models of successful WBT are available, the commitment to this delivery model is predicted to continue to grow. The previous corporate experience of the “productivity paradox” in relation to computers, in which some succeeded in improving productivity while others did not—and some even experienced productivity losses—will need to be avoided, especially in relation to promising innovations such as reusable learning objects . Similarly, arrival of the noncommercial “new Internets” in Canada and the United States constitute a fresh start, an opportunity to demonstrate the value of these resources for academic and research purposes. Choices of the right technologies, effective use of these choices, attention to security and privacy concerns, adequate training and support of users at all levels, assurance of timely and convenient technology access, and attention to interpersonal needs of participants, if achieved, will result in the expansion and continued success of WBT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.004 |
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 it