MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1954835856 · doi:10.14742/ajet.1349

An instrument to support thinking critically about critical thinking in online asynchronous discussions

2004· article· en· W1954835856 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Educational Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConstruct (python library)Asynchronous communicationCritical thinkingMeasure (data warehouse)PsychologyCognitionComputer scienceEmpirical researchMathematics educationApplied psychologyMedical educationMedicineEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<span>This paper reports on the creation of an instrument for use by instructors, students, or researchers to identify, measure or promote critical thinking (CT) in online asynchronous discussions (OADs). Four models of CT were reviewed, synthesised, analysed, and evaluated to clarify the construct. Indicators of specific cognitive processes related to CT were identified, and subsequently retained, rejected or modified to show how the construct might be operationalised in real contexts of use. Subsequent empirical testing of the instrument for the analysis of a transcript of an OAD revealed that while the instrument was valuable in identifying and measuring CT in the OAD, issues of practicality need to be addressed. Implications for research and practice are presented.</span>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.358 · 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