Team Learning and Communication: the Effectiveness of Email-Based Ethics Discussions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In fall 2003, students from two U.S. universities and a Canadian university participated in an ethics project. One solution to overcome the obstacles to ethics discussions among students who are geographically separated is the use of email as a mode of communication. As a basis for their discussions, the students used the accounting ethics vignette titled “The Error” from the Ar thur Andersen Business Ethics Program. This ar ticle repor ts on the results of the analysis of U.S. and Canadian students' responses to pre- and postquestionnaires concerning the alternatives available to the character in the ethics scenario before and after their written email discussions and group repor ts. The students did have significant changes in their responses after their discussions of the character's alternatives. It also repor ts the students' responses to a project feedback questionnaire concerning the students' perceptions of the importance of ethical training and discussions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it