MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2485361389 · doi:10.1057/9780230602151_2

Culture Clash in Computerized Classrooms

2002· book-chapter· en· W2485361389 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ivor Goodson, Michele Knobel, Colín Lankshear, J. Marshall Mangan

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooks · 2002
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Technology Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus (optics)Selection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceEngineering ethicsSoftwareICTSMathematics educationManagement scienceEngineering managementInformation and Communications TechnologyEngineeringPsychologyWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this chapter, we focus on the introduction of computers into high school classrooms in Ontario, Canada. Many studies of computer introduction focus on issues of technical implementation: issues of how people learn the techniques and, indeed, the “language” of computers. This concentration reflects a certain definition of the problems surrounding the introduction of ICTs into schools. Essentially, the problems are seen as those of overcoming the considerable challenges presented by selection of the hardware and software, technology installation and maintenance, and staff training and development. The methodology of such research, whether qualitative or quantitative, reflects this definition of the problem in its focus. And, as with all research, the definition of the problem and the methodological focus have a great deal of influence on what we “find.” These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0250.042
Scholarly communication0.0170.005
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooksSame topicEducation and Technology IntegrationFrench-language works237,207