Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer mediated conferencing (CMC) has been widely viewed as a valuable forum for providing opportunities for interaction among learners in a distance education setting. Interaction in distance contexts; however, is not well understood, and it has been argued that social markers are cued in online communications and that gender influences interaction processes and participation. Earlier research has identified two discourse types, epistolary and expository, that have been associated with gender. This study examined the discourse patterns and styles of 37 women and 27 men involved in a graduate course that used computer conferencing. Predicted patterns of discourse were found; women tended to use more epistolary or aligned type statements, and men tended to use more expository type statements. An investigation of satisfaction, commitment, and purpose for interaction indicated that level of satisfaction with interactions was similar, but evidence of gender-related purposive differences and a higher participation rate for men were found. Les conferences telematiques sont largement considerees comme un bon moyen d’offrir des opportunites d’interactions entre apprenants en situation d’education a distance. L’interaction dans le contexte de la distance, cependant, n’est pas bien comprise, et il a ete avance que les marqueurs sociaux sont determines dans les communications en ligne et que le genre influence les processus d’interaction et de participation. La litterature identifie deux types de discours, epistolaire et expositoire, qui sont associes au genre. Des formes previsibles de discours ont etes trouvees. Les femmes ont tendance a utiliser des enonces epistolaires, alors que les hommes utilisent plus d’enonces expositoires. Une etude de la satisfaction, de l’engagement et du but de l’interaction indique que le niveau de satisfaction avec les interactions etait similaire, mais il y avait indication de differences dans le but reliees au genre et un taux de participation plus eleves pour lese hommes.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".