MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1857824533 · doi:10.5751/es-01384-100204

Learning More Effectively from Experience

2005· article· en· W1857824533 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian National University
KeywordsExperiential learningSystems thinkingKnowledge managementPsychologyAdaptive managementAdaptation (eye)Relation (database)Perspective (graphical)Management scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental resource managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing the capacity for individuals to learn effectively from their experiences is an important part of building the knowledge and skills in organizations to do good adaptive management. This paper reviews some of the research from cognitive psychology and phenomenography to present a way of thinking about learning to assist individuals to make better use of their personal experiences to develop understanding of environmental systems. We suggest that adaptive expertise (an individual's ability to deal flexibly with new situations) is particularly relevant for environmental researchers and practitioners. To develop adaptive expertise, individuals need to: (1) vary and reflect on their experiences and become adept at seeking out and taking different perspectives; and (2) become proficient at making balanced judgements about how or if an experience will change their current perspective or working representation of a social, economic, and biophysical system by applying principles of "good thinking." Such principles include those that assist individuals to be open to the possibility of changing their current way of thinking (e.g., the disposition to be adventurous) and those that reduce the likelihood of making erroneous interpretations (e. g., the disposition to be intellectually careful). An example of applying some of the principles to assist individuals develop their understanding of a dynamically complex wetland system (the Macquarie Marshes in Australia) is provided. The broader implications of individual learning are also discussed in relation to organizational learning, the role of experiential knowledge for conservation, and for achieving greater awareness of the need for ecologically sustainable activity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.334 · 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