MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stages of a cyber-writing partnership

2004· article· en· W1998731496 on OpenAlexaff
Muriel Robinson, Margaret Mackey

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish in Education · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollaborative writingFace (sociological concept)PhraseGeneral partnershipSet (abstract data type)SociologyPedagogyWork (physics)Mathematics educationComputer sciencePsychologyEngineeringPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New technologies are changing what we understand by distance and what we interpret as personal relationships. “Working together” is a phrase with a whole new set of relationships in this networked universe.In this article, two writers, who collaborated on a project long before they ever met face to face, describe the challenges of building up a writing relationship in the comparative vacuum of the ether. They describe what happened when, partway through the extended writing project, they finally met and got to work in the same room for a few days, and then consider what happened subsequently. They draw from their own experience of collaboration some principles for the development and support of collaborative writing in school.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish in EducationSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207