MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403874045 · doi:10.5430/bmr.v5n2p31

Traditional Versus Online Learning in Institutions of Higher Education: Minority Business Students’ Perceptions

2016· article· en· W2403874045 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness and Management Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionOnline learningFace-to-faceFace (sociological concept)PsychologyHigher educationBlended learningMode (computer interface)Mathematics educationDistance educationPedagogySociologyEducational technologyPolitical scienceMultimediaComputer scienceEpistemologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For decades, scholars have debated which mode of education is superior. Some argue that online is superior and others argue that online is less effective than traditional face-to-face courses. Still others suggest that the hybrid mode (e.g., online blended with face-to-face lectures) is the most desired and productive content delivery method for students. However, students’ perceptions towards online learning as compared to traditional face-to-face learning have largely been overlooked. This paper intends to fill this void in the literature and explore minority students’ perceptions towards online learning versus traditional face-to-face modes of education in 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.268 · 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