MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729289480 · doi:10.37467/gka-revtechno.v6.363

¿Por qué comunicarse en formación a distancia?

2017· article· en· W2729289480 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTECHNO REVIEW International Technology Science and Society Review /Revista Internacional de Tecnología Ciencia y Sociedad · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicE-Learning and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQ
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distance Education (DE) seems a way to meet the qualification requirements of contemporary societies, promoting lifelong learning anywhere. However, this mode of education often suffers from high dropout rates, notably caused by students’ isolation. The development of various communication tools offers spaces to interact and work together. To what extent do students take advantage of the proposed interaction devices to communicate and learn with others? Based on a systematic review of studies published over the last ten years addressing these types of devices established in Canada, our meta-analysis highlights that in general, students prefer to take advantage of the flexibility of DE and work alone. Thus, in most devices, there are not many students communicating. However, we will see that, when it is not only about socializing but also reflecting on a practice, interactions are much more frequent.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0130.006
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.302 · 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