MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059487558 · doi:10.1080/01587919.2010.513957

The Luddite Revolt continues

2010· article· en· W2059487558 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

VenueDistance Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistance educationCriticismThe InternetQuality (philosophy)SociologyPsychologyEducational technologyPedagogyPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceEpistemologyLawWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bicentenary in 2011 of the Luddite Revolt prompts us to ask ‘what would Ned Ludd think of today’s automated styles of distance education?’ He would no doubt echo the common criticism that educational technologies create an impersonal style of teaching and learning, and devalue the teacher. He would probably agree that online methods have major potential for millions of distance‐based students who cannot attend classroom‐based education and training; but he would emphasise the need for quality assurance and cost‐effectiveness studies in distance education implementation. He might also ask why anyone would encourage the development of e‐learning in countries where the Internet is largely inaccessible. This article uses the Luddites’ views of workplace automation to explore how global distance education practices might be improved. It suggests that the intentions of the original Luddites were laudable and worthy of application in distance education today.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.326 · 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