Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter discusses the cultural paradigm of ‘innovative artefacts’ in the workplace. This cultural paradigm is one of two proposed paradigms that shape socio-culturally insensitive, technological artefactual approaches to workplace e-learning research and study. Subsequently, this paradigm also socially reshapes workplace e-leaning historicity for workplace adult education and training, resulting in socio-cultural impacts on the workforce. Technological innovation and business process change dominate workplace transformations. At the same time, any discussion on the socio-cultural impacts of workplace e-learning must also take into account that workplace e-learning is arguably both a technological innovation and as well as a business administration process, all of which affect adult learning in the workplace. Critical theory problematizes these relations between technology and technological progress as well as workplace e-learning. The ‘presumption of neutrality’ is highlighted as it influences the shaping of workplace e-learning and its dubious, shifting, and reversible impacts on the workforce. A focused discourse analysis of the connotations and assumptions that have further shaped e-learning for the workplace over the past decade illustrate workplace e-learning’s changing emphases over the years, from administrational to associational to artefactual, today. The technological artefacts of workplace elearning now deserve closer scrutiny. The similarities and differences between ‘online learning and simulations’, ‘learning objects’, and ‘learning management systems’ are highlighted as each of these technological artefacts, more often than not, is taken as equivalent to and a substitute for learning. The ‘presumption of neutrality’ now also comes to fruition in the ‘infallibility paradox’ for workplace e-learning. For workplace e-learning, adherence to the belief in the infallibility of innovative artefacts leads to two workplace e-learning scenarios: (a) instrumental instruction (see Chapter 7); and, (b) rational training (see Chapter 8).
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".