Perspectives on the Experience of the Learning Community Through Online Discussions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article I discuss the findings from a student survey that examined the role of online discussion groups in maintaining a learning community when nursing students were separated by time and place during their last practicum before graduation. The learning community was created face-to-face and then maintained and enhanced through online discussions. Students gained skills and knowledge about nursing, teaching and learning, technology, time management, and critical thinking. Dans cet article, je discute des resultats d’une enquete, menee aupres d’etudiants en nursing, et qui examine le role des groupes de discussion en ligne dans le maintien d’une communaute d’apprenants lorsque les etudiants ont ete separes dans le temps et l’espace pendant leur dernier stage avant leur graduation. La communaute d’apprenants a ete creee en face a face puis elle s’est maintenue et s’est developpee par le biais des discussions en ligne. Les etudiants y ont acquis des habilites et des connaissances dans le domaine du nursing, ainsi que dans les domaines de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage, des technologies, de la gestion du temps et de la pensee critique.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it