MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176760642 · doi:10.11575/prism/29720

Traditional instruction reformed with flipped classroom techniques

2015· article· en· W2176760642 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Lee, Susan Beatty, Patrick Feng, Nadine Hoffman, Brenda McDermott

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceInterimThe artsThe InternetSociologyWriting centerComputer scienceWorld Wide WebArtPolitical scienceVisual artsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A flipped classroom moves away from a lecture-then-homework model by assigning “content” before the class, and then engaging students with the content or concepts during the class. This poster describes the redesign of a series of information literacy sessions in a first-year inquiry-based learning class, by employing flipped classroom techniques. It also reflects on the collaborative process of session redesign and lessons learned about executing a flipped classroom. The redesign came about as a result of the course instructor providing librarians with additional time, and an assessment component. The instructor, librarians, and a writing support coordinator worked together to revamp what was originally traditional lecture-style sessions. The pre-assigned content also included short quizzes administered through a course management system to ensure students understood content before class. Facilitated classroom activities allowed students to practice concepts with feedback. A final assessment component was also administered through the course management system and will be compared to quiz marks.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicWeb and Library ServicesFrench-language works237,207