2007 TechEd Annual Conference: Conference Report
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To report on the 2007 Annual TechEd Conference held in Ontario, California. Design Methodology/approach The annual conference aims to provide attendees with continuing product demonstrations, vendor presentations, invited papers and social events that will help promote new methods of instruction at all levels, but especially in higher education. Exhibits from vendors include technology, course management systems, information materials and services. Findings Instructional technology is driving changes in high school, community college and undergraduate education, especially as distance education becomes a bigger component in all methods of traditional academic as well as new launches in higher education, continuing education and lifelong learning. Practical implications Many case studies and presentations were made demonstrating the implementation of technology and different applications in a range of educational environments. Library implementation is not always the focus but topics about teaching, learning, administration and related applications, and integrating Web 2.0 technologies in instruction was abundant. Originality/Value Institutions offering distance education as a platform for expanding curriculum reforms and reaching out to students in creative ways are finding that technology reform and products are shaping new ways to teach and integrate information sources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it