Web 2.0, e-Portfolios, and Continuing Professional Education in University Masters Courses and Beyond
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
Although typical Web 2.0 technologies and functions offer significant potential for widespread and productive use in higher education “there are many unresolved problems and issues in its use in universities… because Web 2.0 is a relatively ‘young’ technology” (Franklin & van Harmelan, 2007). One of the relatively undeveloped but potentially productive avenues for exploring the educational implications of a Web 2.0 paradigm lies in their potential uses for various forms of e-portfolio in education or for learning and assessment purposes. This is especially so in the area of continuing professional education (CPE/CPD) in University courses and beyond. Thus in relation to the useful possibilities of linking CPE/CPD courses or contexts and social networking media, this panel will explore the potential to extend the e-portfolio concept in education to include what some commentators have referred to as the educational implications of a Web 2.0 (or e-learning 2.0) paradigm.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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