MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031908727 · doi:10.5204/jld.v1i2.18

An authentic learning design for farm tours

2012· article· en· W2031908727 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christopher K. Morgan, Rod Cox

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Learning Design · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiverse Educational Innovations Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of QueenslandIllinois State UniversityUniversity of GloucestershireGeological Society of AmericaCentral Queensland UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsAuthentic learningContext (archaeology)Agricultural educationOutdoor educationExperiential learningField tripInstructional designObservational studyEducational technologyLearning designMathematics educationPsychologyObservational learningFoundation (evidence)PedagogyAgricultureGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taking students out into the field to visit properties has been a foundation of agricultural education practice in Australian higher education. These excursions are invariably popular with students, but their enjoyment of these activities may be largely due to factors other than the achievement of learning outcomes. This paper reports on a constructivist learning design used for a farm tour whereby strategies were deliberately planned and employed to challenge students to develop their observational skills in an authentic context. Students needed to utilise their prior learning in the area and engage with each other to devise and present proposals to both academic staff and industry cooperators while on the tour.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Learning DesignSame topicDiverse Educational Innovations StudiesFrench-language works237,207