MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1947335013 · doi:10.21432/t25s3m

Breaking the ice: Supporting collaboration and the development of community online

2006· article· en· W1947335013 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Julie Dixon, Heather Crooks, Karen S. Henry

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistance educationPsychologyTransactional analysisPoint (geometry)Computer-mediated communicationOnline learningTransactional leadershipOnline communityCollaborative learningEducational technologyPedagogySocial psychologyComputer scienceThe InternetMultimediaWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the concept of transactional distance, a term coined by Moore (1993), which relates to the distance that exists in all learning relationships and can be more evident and potentially problematic in online learning environments. Reducing this psychologically perceived distance to help learners develop social presence in support of collaborative relationships and the development of community in online learning environments is the purpose of this research. Icebreakers are fun activities that help people get to know each other. These activities can potentially ameliorate the perceived distance in online learning environments. Two author-developed icebreakers were used in a preliminary study involving university undergraduates and instructors in online environments. Respondents took part in an icebreaker at the start of a semester and at the mid-point after which they completed a questionnaire about perceived value of icebreakers. Early results were positive and have led to recommendations for practice.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations51
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207