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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Falih M. Alsaaty, Ella Carter, David Abrahams, Faleh Alshameri

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.194
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

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

Citations74
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness and Management ResearchSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207