MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Coding and Professional Development-Part 1: A Study in Contradictions

2017· article· fr· W2751133529 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sam Popowich

Bibliographic record

VenuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Education and Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)SociologyPipeline (software)DemocratizationHumanitiesEpistemologyComputer sciencePolitical sciencePhilosophyArtificial intelligenceDemocracyProgramming languageLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is a critical examination of discourses around the democratization of software development skills. It critiques the idea of a "pipeline problem" in software development, while offering a theoretical perspective on class and gender bias in the adoption of programming skills.
 
 Cet article offre un examen critique du discours sur la démocratisation des compétences en développement de logiciels. Il critique la notion de « problème de pipeline » en développement de logiciels tout en offrant une perspective théorique sur les préjugés sexistes et de classe quant à l’adoption des compétences en programmation.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.034
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.229 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and ResearchSame topicInnovative Education and Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207