MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176640365 · doi:10.22329/celt.v8i0.4249

Initiating Innovation in Post-secondary Institutions – Customizing Teaching and Learning Environments: Collective Reflections from the 2014 Cohort of 3M National Student Fellows

2015· article· en· W2176640365 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Heather B. Carroll, Shwetha Chandrashekhar, Danny Shih-Cheng Huang, David Kim, Peter Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of GuelphUniversity of British ColumbiaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct (python library)Higher educationSociologyMathematics educationPedagogyTeaching methodCohortPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In light of the enormous changes unfolding presently in the higher education landscape, we don’t have to look too far to recognize evidence of the transformation and redefinition of the construct of both teaching and learning in the information age. With a growing focus on teaching and learning at all levels of post-secondary institutions, innovation is reflective in the introduction of new learning spaces, state-of-the-art technology-enhanced education, and prominence given to discussions about adapting teaching and learning to the 21st century. Likewise, in this article we examine the reflections, ideas, conversations and exchanges inspired by the cohort’s plenary planning discussions and the current birth of innovation in reshaping Canadian higher education.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0340.024
Scholarly communication0.0170.004
Open science0.0030.019
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

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
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicHigher Education Practises and EngagementFrench-language works237,207