MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078511524 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000708

Sociomateriality

2015· article· en· W2078511524 on OpenAlexaff
Anna MacLeod, Olga Kits, Emma Whelan, Cathy Fournier, Keith Wilson, Gregory Power, Karen Mann, Jonathan Tummons, Peggy Alexiadis Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)SociologyField (mathematics)CognitionDistance educationVideoconferencingEpistemologyEngineering ethicsPsychologyPedagogyComputer scienceMultimediaEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributed medical education (DME) is a type of distance learning in which students participate in medical education from diverse geographic locations using Web conferencing, videoconferencing, e-learning, and similar tools. DME is becoming increasingly widespread in North America and around the world.Although relatively new to medical education, distance learning has a long history in the broader field of education and a related body of literature that speaks to the importance of engaging in rigorous and theoretically informed studies of distance learning. The existing DME literature is helpful, but it has been largely descriptive and lacks a critical "lens"-that is, a theoretical perspective from which to rigorously conceptualize and interrogate DME's social (relationships, people) and material (technologies, tools) aspects.The authors describe DME and theories about distance learning and show that such theories focus on social, pedagogical, and cognitive considerations without adequately taking into account material factors. They address this gap by proposing sociomateriality as a theoretical framework allowing researchers and educators to study DME and (1) understand and consider previously obscured actors, infrastructure, and other factors that, on the surface, seem unrelated and even unimportant; (2) see clearly how the social and material components of learning are intertwined in fluid, messy, and often uncertain ways; and (3) perhaps think differently, even in ways that disrupt traditional approaches, as they explore DME. The authors conclude that DME brings with it substantial investments of social and material resources, and therefore needs careful study, using approaches that embrace its complexity.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.017
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.007

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 head0.315
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.174 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations39
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicHigher Education Practises and EngagementFrench-language works237,207