Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaboration can be used in classrooms to demonstrate a variety of concepts using visual representations.This workshop presents "The Giant Puzzle" as an innovative and flexible teaching and learning tool.This workshop will focus on Indigenous Ethics and Protocols and three major aspects of research: Academia, Indigenous Communities, and the Self to illustrate numerous research and cultural intricacies.As the puzzle pieces are brought together, a larger picture is revealed to identify cultural underpinning that complement Indigenous and Western ways of knowing.Activities that engage students in creative thinking, experiential learning, and summative group discussions enhance critical reflection, inquiry, and learning while having fun. Collaboration in the Classroom-How and where can collaboration be used to enhance critical reflection and learning?Inquiry?Leadership?Fun collaborative activities may be tailored to any classroom environment.Benefits to incorporating creativity in learning activities are the development of new and original ideas, visualization of multilayered concepts, and the enhancement of critical reflection and inquiry proficiency.This workshop presents The Giant Puzzle as an innovative teaching and learning tool.To demonstrate the effectiveness of collaboration, participants will complete the construction of, and analysis of, a giant puzzle in a group setting.The workshop theme will focus on conducting ethical research with human subjects.Indigenous ethics and protocol along with three intersecting research roles of Academia, Indigenous Communities, and the Self will be explored.As the puzzle pieces are brought together, a larger picture will emerge to reveal academic and cultural underpinnings of Western and Indigenous ways of knowing.The process of collaborative work will invoke critical reflection, contemplative inquiry, and organizational and leadership skills. Collaboration in inquiry-How can you use collaborative activities in learning to prepare students for their academic or professional futures?Collaborative activities such as "The Giant Puzzle" provide students with the gift of intellectual exploration, knowledge exchange, and team building skill.Other skills that arise from a collaboration inquiry process are deep listening, critical analysis, relational respect, visualization, and self-confidence in generating and sharing innovative ideas with group members.Students prepare for their academic or professional futures by cultivating critical reflective capacities, having open-minds, and developing intellect.
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 | 0.286 | 0.379 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.010 |
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".