Evidence Based Management for Learning: An Experiment
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we combine an immersive learning environment, an evidence based management method and the knowledge management SECI mindset to investigate students’ learning from scientific journal articles. The study entailed the use of a web-based peer to peer system (P2PS) that, gives an identified subject matter, engages students in extracting knowledge from a source, processes that knowledge to create new knowledge, assesses each other’s works, and then creates a test on the subject matter. We found that the immersive learning environment engaged students and improved their examination performance. However, comparing two groups, exposed versus not exposed to scientific journal article, both focused on keywords alone for the knowledge processing. This was not a desirable outcome from the knowledge management process and the tool. We believe this outcome is a result of engrained traditional learning and driven by our wish to make a change in educational practice, we propose our e-pedagogy methodology as a learning foundation for knowledge processing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it