MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989443727 · doi:10.1002/crq.38

Having students take responsibility for the process of learning

2003· article· en· W1989443727 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Schneider, Julie Macfarlane

Bibliographic record

VenueConflict Resolution Quarterly · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Action (physics)Class (philosophy)Class actionResolution (logic)Process managementComputer scienceEngineering ethicsPsychologyBusinessEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is often an inconsistency in conflict resolution teaching between what we are trying to impart—that process matters deeply and that we should be proactive about enabling effective and appropriate process—and how class is often conducted. This short article offers some reflections on the sources of that inconsistency, and some suggestions for corrective action.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConflict Resolution QuarterlySame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207