MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172024475 · doi:10.1177/0741713604263053

A Beautiful Friendship? The Relationship of Research to Practice in Adult Education

2004· article· en· W2172024475 on OpenAlexaff
Ralf St. Clair

Bibliographic record

VenueAdult Education Quarterly · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAdult and Continuing Education Topics
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFriendshipPsychologyPedagogyAdult educationSociologyRelationship educationSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the use of research by adult education practitioners both empirically and theoretically. It is suggested that arguments for making research more relevant to practice must be treated with caution and that the relationship between research and practice is inherently loose. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.368
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.666
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3680.666
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0130.115
Scholarly communication0.0380.052
Open science0.0040.022
Research integrity0.0140.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdult Education QuarterlySame topicAdult and Continuing Education TopicsFrench-language works237,207