MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102610646 · doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00132

Comparing Web, Correspondence and Lecture versions of a second‐year non‐major Biology course

2000· article· en· W2102610646 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

VenueBritish Journal of Educational Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourse (navigation)Web siteWorld Wide WebMathematics educationWeb applicationComputer scienceThe InternetPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparison of correspondence and Web versions of the same course indicated that, although the students were very satisfied with the Web version, the correspondence section achieved the higher mean final scores in three of the four semesters while the Web course achieved the higher mean score in only one semester. A literature search indicated that there are very few studies which compare the relative successes of Web‐based courses and traditional (lecture) courses as this present study does. In addition most of these other comparative studies are based on only one offering of the Web‐based course, whereas the present study evaluates the Web‐based course over four different semesters.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.302 · 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