Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to introduce service‐learning 2.0 model based on four new paradigms in the global business landscape: connectivity, creativity, community, and complexity. Design/methodology/approach The paper reviews four paradigm shifts and their effects on service‐learning practices and methodology: wikinomics and mass collaboration, collective intelligence and open innovation, appreciative inquiry and positive organizational scholarship (POS), and self‐organizing systems and the new sciences. Findings Service‐learning 2.0 can be used to develop our students' twenty‐first century thinking skills through applied community engagement projects, namely: interactivity and interconnectedness, innovation and insight, and inspiration and intuition, integrative and interdisciplinary thinking. Practical implications Service‐learning 2.0 principles and pedagogy can help students appreciate and prepare for increasing complexity and paradox of management and organizations in the light of global, social and organizational changes of the twenty‐first century. Originality/value Service‐learning 2.0 model represents the pedagogy, principles, and processes that are better suited to the global, technological, and social changes and challenges of the 21st century.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".