MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118137205 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v5i1.164

Best Practices in Online Conference Moderation

2004· article· en· W2118137205 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Adrienne De Schutter, Patricia Fahrni, Jim Rudolph

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModerationSocializationContext (archaeology)Session (web analytics)FacilitationPsychologyKnowledge managementSocial psychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facilitation by a moderator is crucial to a purposeful and productive conference. The moderator keeps the session focused, and ensures that all participants receive feedback regarding their contributions to the discussion. These functions are particularly important in the otherwise impersonal context of online discussion. The current report reviews recent literature regarding the moderator's roles regarding participant access and motivation, online socialization, information exchange and knowledge construction. A synchronous audio conference situation is assumed. Principles of online teaching and learning identified by

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicWikis in Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207