MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1868647897 · doi:10.29173/iasl7732

The school library and e-learning platforms

2021· article· en· W1868647897 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Monica Morscheck

Bibliographic record

VenueIASL Annual Conference Proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)School libraryDigital libraryGovernment (linguistics)Service (business)Computer scienceSpace (punctuation)World Wide WebMultimediaLibrary scienceMathematics educationBusinessPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The teacher-librarian should be the most effective weapon for collaborative teaching and learning within a school. Teacher-librarians do struggle to find time to effectively plan for the cooperative teaching and learning activities. Often school libraries run their own website as they struggle to offer a digital 24/7 library service for its users. The school library website makes it easier for the teacher-librarian to manage the information delivery but isolates the content. The teacher-librarian managed website is often not an effective tool for cooperative planning and teaching. This paper will look at how the teacher-librarian can use e-learning platforms to deliver a digital 24/7 library service, and in addition, offer a great collaborative space for effective cooperative planning and teaching. This paper will focus on examples of practice in two schools. The first school is a New South Wales government high school and uses Moodle as the e-learning platform. The second school is an international K-12 private school and uses StudyWiz as the e-learning platform.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0200.025
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.018

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIASL Annual Conference ProceedingsSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207