Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Centre for the Study of Classroom Processes (CSCP) at Concordia University in Montreal recently completed a three year project to compile a specialized database on the successful pedagogical approach of cooperative learning.Using the BiblioLinks software, the results of CD-ROM searches executed on a variety of source databases, were transferred into an in-house database. Utilizing the ProCite bibliographic management software, a package designedto store bibliographic information, the database was customized according to the needs of the CSCP. The benefits of establishing a specialized database included the ability to perform extensive searches on multidisciplinary sub-topicswithin the area of cooperative learning. However a number of problems occurred throughout the course of compiling the database, the majority of which related to limitations with the hardware and software. This article provides a chronology of those problems. Issues related to copyright and the publication of this database in the form of a comprehensive bibliography, are also addressed.
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 | 0.021 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.025 |
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".