MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035571410 · doi:10.1080/14623940410001691018

Sinking in a C‐M sea: a graduate student's experience of learning through asynchronous computer‐mediated communication

2004· article· en· W2035571410 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

VenueReflective Practice · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsynchronous communicationStyle (visual arts)Context (archaeology)Computer-mediated communicationPsychologySynchronous learningPedagogyExperiential learningLearning environmentGraduate studentsCooperative learningMathematics educationComputer scienceTeaching methodThe InternetWorld Wide WebVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While formats for online university courses vary according to subject and sponsoring university, many graduate level courses incorporate Computer‐Mediated Communication (C‐MC) as a context for learning. Wanting personally to experience a C‐MC, I enrolled in an asynchronous graduate course. I found, however, that I was not prepared for what transpired during those thirteen weeks in that virtual classroom: my learning style and conceptual framework were challenged, and my pedagogical paradigm given a good shake. What follows is a reflective dialogue on my C‐MC learning experience. I have deliberately chosen to objectify my experience into a third person dialogue format for two reasons: dialogue heightens the idea of social construction of knowledge, and it presents a representation of the learning which occurred when my dominant learning style encountered an unfamiliar, hence uncomfortable, learning environment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.375 · 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