MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1933556525 · doi:10.19030/ctms.v3i4.5586

Student Empowerment In An Online Program

2011· article· en· W1933556525 on OpenAlexaff
Mary H. Brown, Peter Kiriakidis

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege Teaching Methods & Styles Journal (CTMS) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsVale (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitalityInstitutionEmpowermentOnline learningHigher educationOnline participationDistance educationStudent engagementSynchronous learningPedagogyKnowledge managementPublic relationsPsychologyComputer scienceSociologyTeaching methodMultimediaCooperative learningThe InternetPolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given that online higher education is a competitive marketplace, this paper discusses how to ensure online student success. Within the online learning environment, the following may create the vitality of the online institution: (a) The online learning environment; (b) The role of the instructor; (c) Learning Communities; (d) Computer-mediated Communication Technologies; and (e) Policy and practice. These factors may be managed by the institution of higher education, the faculty member, or the learner; however, a commitment is needed by all stakeholders in the program.

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 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollege Teaching Methods & Styles Journal (CTMS)Same topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207