Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explains the concept of learning in the light of the opinions of behaviourists, connectivists andhumanists. The researcher focused on key points of difference among the behaviourists themselves and otherschools of thought on the topic. For this purpose, the qualitative paradigm of research was used and method ofcontent analyses was applied. According to the behaviourists learning is not an active but passive process ofmemorizing information that requires external reward. Understanding is merely seeing relationship or patternsand applications requires not more than transfer of training. According to the humanists learning is a personal actof individual to fully utilize his potential. It is essential that instructional activities should be based on thelearners’ basic needs for the success of the learning process. It is an unending curiosity that includes identifying,discovering, drawing in from the outside world and making that which is drawn in a real part of Me. Learningsituation must allow the learner to move at a pace that best suited to him. It should provide opportunities forcontinuous assessment and utilization of the feedback as a part of learning. Connectivists believe that learning isa way of being. It is an ongoing pattern of attitudes and actions by individuals and groups which they employ todeal with the surprising, new/novel, messy, obtrusive events and situations. It occurs in different of ways fromthe practicing communities, personal networks, and through completion of work-related tasks. It is a continuousprocess for a lifetime without separation from work related activities. They present a model of learning whichrecognizes that learning is no longer an internal, individualistic activity. It provides an insight and skills to thelearners how to flourish and progress in a digital era of technology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".