MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1956855291 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v7i2.2914

Reaching Across Narrative Space: Re-interpreting One Teacher’s Experience with Technology

2011· article· en· W1956855291 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dragana Martinović, Jelena Magliaro, Timothy Pugh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialogicNarrativeContext (archaeology)Information and Communications TechnologyInterpretation (philosophy)Space (punctuation)PedagogySociologyProcess (computing)Point (geometry)Narrative inquiryPsychologyEpistemologyComputer scienceLinguisticsHistoryWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the authors investigate one teacher’s utilization of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) by drawing context from two of his life-stories: one that he interprets as “ruin” and the other “success.” Methodologically grounded in narrative inquiry, this paper contains excerpts from the teacher’s authentic narratives and their interpretation from the point of information systems research, known as the social process model. The findings emphasize that with the dialogic involvement of educational researchers, it is possible to reach a deeper understanding of the events that influenced the teacher’s experience with technology. Such synergistic alliances amongst educational researchers and teachers are key for detecting and overcoming the linguistic and operational barriers that exist between ICT theorists and practitioners.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.026
Scholarly communication0.0150.020
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207