MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144226050 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v16i2.30

A Systematic Process for Educational Policy Development: Based on a Systems Approach to Training and Project Management

2007· article· en· W2144226050 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Catherine Bates

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Equity (law)Training (meteorology)Educational managementPolicy developmentProcess managementMathematics educationPedagogyPsychologyPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsComputer scienceBusinessPublic administrationEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Canadian Forces leadership is considered to be the paramount skill of all members. For Training Development Officers, one method of displaying leadership is through the careful consideration of educational policy and its skilful implementation. If we do not take the time to write carefully considered policy, then students and their issues are managed according to the values and beliefs of individual decision makers. Normally this is fine, but when it negatively impacts students or teachers then neither equality nor equity is achieved.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock Education JournalSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207