MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W241215680

Loose among the Literati: Wired Writers and the Virtual Practicum.

2005· article· en· W241215680 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Trevor Owen, Sudha Takaki

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Canada · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumInternshipInstitutionService (business)SociologyResidenceMedical educationPedagogyLibrary sciencePsychologyMedia studiesComputer scienceMedicineSocial scienceBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

recall an article in the Fall 2001 issue in which Christine Uy and I reported on one of the ancillary programs of the Writers In Electronic Residence (WIER) program. In that case, we reported how the experience of WIER was extended to include the integration of a substantial collection of contemporary Canadian authors’ works into a school library and literature program, and how these were supported by regular face-to-face visits by authors selected from this group. In this article, I am pleased to team up with Sudha Takaki to report on another of WIER’s ancillary projects, “The Virtual Practicum,” which provides online practice teaching placements to pre-service candidates. WIER offered its first virtual practicum in 1989 through the former Faculty of Education, University of Toronto, and has since expanded to include programs at several institutions; other initiatives have appeared elsewhere, developing notions of what virtual practica might be. Takaki participated in WIER through OISE/UT’s “Internship Program,” which involves pre-service candidates in experiences beyond the institution. She worked online

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0330.058
Scholarly communication0.0230.013
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0040.008
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation CanadaSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207