A Structured Virtual Space to Support Articulating and Sharing Rationales in Virtual Group Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior studies have shown that articulating and sharing group members’ rationales is beneficial in group activities. Yet there is limited understanding about design for sharing and organizing the rationales in virtual group activities. Addressing this research gap, this ongoing study explores design guidelines of a shared rationale space in a virtual group workspace. The user interface design of a work-in-progress rationale sharing groupware is presentedDes études antérieures ont démontré que l’articulation et le partage du raisonnement des membres d’un groupe sont bénéfiques aux activités du groupe. Pourtant, on comprend mal comment concevoir le design d’un espace de partage et d’organisation du raisonnement lors d’activités de groupe virtuelles. Cette étude en cours cherche à combler cette lacune en explorant les normes de design d’un espace de partage du raisonnement d’un groupe de travail virtuel. Sera présenté le design d’une ébauche d’interface graphique d’un espace de partage du raisonnement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".