MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972945290 · doi:10.5175/jswe.2012.200900014

Enhancing Social Work Education Through Team-Based Learning

2012· article· en· W1972945290 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Work Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial workFlexibility (engineering)Team-based learningCurriculumWork (physics)Cooperative learningGroup workTeamworkKnowledge managementSocial learningMedical educationPsychologyComputer sciencePedagogyTeaching methodEngineeringMedicineManagementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Group learning strategies are used extensively in social work education, despite the challenges and negative outcomes regularly experienced by students and faculty. Building on principles of cooperative learning, team-based learning offers a more structured approach that maximizes the benefits of cooperative learning while also offering considerable flexibility. This article presents the core principles and elements of team-based learning, provides examples of its use in 2 undergraduate social work courses, and highlights some of the benefits and challenges of applying it in social work curricula.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.326 · 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