MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625000075 · doi:10.1002/tl.20239

Building Bridges from the Decoding Interview to Teaching Practice

2017· article· en· W2625000075 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Pettit, Melanie Rathburn, Victoria Calvert, Roberta Lexier, Margot Underwood, Judy Gleeson, Yasmin Dean

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Directions for Teaching and Learning · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Decoding methodsMultidisciplinary approachPsychologyHigher educationPedagogyComputer scienceMedical educationMathematics educationSociologySocial psychologyMedicinePolitical scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter describes a multidisciplinary faculty self‐study about reciprocity in service‐learning. The study began with each coauthor participating in a Decoding interview. We describe how Decoding combined with collaborative self‐study had a positive impact on our teaching practice.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0140.032
Scholarly communication0.0160.025
Open science0.0040.024
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Directions for Teaching and LearningSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207