Realizing the Democratic Potential of Online Sources in the Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our hypothesis was simple enough: undergraduates would better understand a historic document online if, instead of having a traditional textual introduction, the same information was made available in bite-size balloons invoked by the users clicking on pins distributed throughout the document. Half the students had a pinned edition and half a more traditional one, while they all had several hours to explore the same eight-page crew agreement from the late 19th century. They then filled out quizzes, short answer tests, and went through an extensive debriefing. The results surprised us. Form made no difference whatsoever, none of the students understood the document’s content. We concluded their difficulty stemmed from living in the immediate, rather than in a temporally informed present, and so they could not fathom the profundity of the past. Seeking to understand this dramatic foreshortening of the analytics of existence, an issue of general interest to humanists, we searched for guidance in the digital humanities and educational literatures with little success. Borrowing from more progressive writings on academic literacy, our solution is a Friere-inspired approach that privileges points of entry for our undergraduates that build on their already-existing knowledge, rather than requiring them to acquire a canonical and frankly out-dated learned past. We argue this critical approach allows our students a democratizing experience that permits them to more fully engage the world as informed citizens.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".