MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181331309 · doi:10.15804/tner.14.36.2.14

Trust in Educational Interactions in Higher Education Institutions: Examination as an Experience of Trust

2014· article· en· W2181331309 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Czerepaniak-Walczak, Elżbieta Perzycka

Bibliographic record

VenueThe New Educational Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Higher educationQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyScale (ratio)Mass educationPedagogyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyMathematics educationHistoryLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents the results of the research on one of the manifestations of trust in higher education institutions, namely the attitude of students to examination and test supervision executed by objective observers. The research was conducted in June 2013 and the specific question applied in the research tool was a real example from the academic life, which was discussed in the media. The context of the analysis is mass nature of higher education. The text presents statistics showing the scale and growth of academic enrolment rate in Poland in the last quarter-century. The analysis focuses on the consequences of the mass nature of higher education for the experience of trust in educational interactions, and precisely on the experience of trust during examinations. In this paper we present a small part of our research on culture of trust in educational interactions assisted by ICT.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe New Educational ReviewSame topicManagement and Organizational PracticesFrench-language works237,207