MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156559761

Asynchronous Discussion Forums: Success Factors, Outcomes, Assessments, and Limitations

2009· article· en· W2156559761 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Technology & Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsynchronous communicationAsynchronous learningComputer scienceOnline discussionComputer-mediated communicationProcess (computing)Face-to-faceDistance educationSynchronous learningMathematics educationPsychologyTeaching methodWorld Wide WebThe InternetCooperative learningTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online learning has been burgeoning over the past decade with one of the more popular modes of conducting online learning being the asynchronous online courses. Within the asynchronous online course, the asynchronous discussion forum replaces the face-to-face interaction of the traditional classroom, but is this form of discussion able to enhance the learning process? This paper reviews the literature regarding asynchronous discussion forums finding that that the asynchronous discussion forum is able to generate the critical dimensions of learning found in the traditional classroom, but it has its limitations.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.348 · 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