MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807809271 · doi:10.21810/sfuer.v10i2.319

Conformity in a 'Canned Course': The Suppression of Authentic Dialogue in Graded Online Discussion Forums

2018· article· en· W2807809271 on OpenAlex
Emma Macfarlane

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueSFU Educational Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCommunication in Education and Healthcare
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubricConformityDemographicsPsychologyMathematics educationCourse (navigation)Online discussionHegemonyPedagogySociologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyEngineeringPolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent shift to online learning environments in higher education has elicited complex issues pertaining to student demographics, course structure and content, and the instructor’s role. In this paper, I explore tensions that I have experienced as an online teaching assistant of an upper-level undergraduate arts course in a mid-size North American university. I am required to adhere to a predetermined course rubric in marking students’ assignments, and all instances of students’ engagement in the course are assessed according to this rubric. I therefore uncomfortably embody a primarily evaluative role. I argue that the assessment of students’ online discussion forum, especially, impacts their ability to engage in authentic dialogue, forcing them to adhere to hegemonic academic standards of structure and content in their responses.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.401 · 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