MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758484375

Connect OER Annual Report, 2016-2017

2017· article· en· W2758484375 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDiverse Interdisciplinary Research Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScheme for Promotion of Academic and Research Collaboration
KeywordsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earlier this year, SPARC launched Connect OER—a platform to share and discover information about Open Educational Resources (OER) activities at campuses across North America. Through Connect OER, academic libraries create and manage profiles about their institution’s efforts on OER, producing valuable data that we use to populate a searchable directory and produce an annual report. As the first Connect OER Annual Report, this document summarizes insights from the Connect OER pilot, which ran from May - July 2017. The data encompass 65 SPARC member libraries spanning 31 U.S. states and five Canadian provinces who participated in the pilot. Our analysis provides a snapshot of what is happening on the ground level with OER at this subset of institutions. Our intent is that these insights will help inform SPARC members, the open education community, and the library community at large about current trends, best practices, and the collective impact being achieved through OER at participating institutions. The purpose of the Connect OER pilot was to identify: • Which SPARC member campuses were actively engaging in OER • What role the library—in relation to other campus stakeholders—was playing in these efforts • What institutional resources have been made available to support these efforts • What kinds of activities and partnerships exist on campus • What the overall impact of OER has been at SPARC member campuses As the project transitions out of the pilot, we hope that the Connect OER directory will continue to grow, so that future annual reports can provide insights based on a broader range of institutions across North America. We recognize that the directory will never reach a state of completion since activities are always evolving, but our annual snapshots will provide a meaningful illustration of the reach of the OER movement, and the impact it has for students. KEY INSIGHTS 1. Libraries are the most engaged entity on campus in efforts to advance OER 2. Within libraries, the department most actively engaged in advancing OER is Scholarly Communications 3. Science is the academic field with the most OER traction 4. Nearly half of the participating institutions have a faculty or staff person with explicit OER responsibilities 5. OER grant programs are the most common type of campus OER program reported 6. SPARC member institutions saved students an estimated $5 million through the use of OER in the 2016-2017 academic year

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.235 · 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