MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103492793 · doi:10.5539/jel.v3n2p33

Generational Perspective of Higher Education Online Student Learning Styles

2014· article· en· W2103492793 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaby boomersGeneration xGeneration yLearning stylesPerspective (graphical)PsychologyHigher educationDescriptive statisticsCognitive styleSocial psychologyPedagogyMathematics educationMarketingComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study was conducted of students participating in on-line academic courses in institutions of higher educationto ascertain if there was a generational influence on learning styles. The specific research question was: What, ifany, relationships exist among learning styles, generational groups, and satisfaction with online learning?Inferential and descriptive statistics were used to determine there was a statistically significant differencesbetween Baby Boomers and the Millennial Generation as well as Generation X. Baby Boomers were found tohave significantly lower scores on this subscale as compared with both the Millennial Generation and GenerationX. In addition, the Millennial Generation reported lower scores on overall satisfaction survey components ascompared with both Generation Xers and Baby Boomers.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.365 · 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