MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808595188 · doi:10.1177/2379298118779972

The “Cold Open” as a Method for Launching a Course

2018· article· en· W2808595188 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Teaching Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingSchema (genetic algorithms)PreambleComputer scienceMathematics educationPsychologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The “cold open” is a literary technique that can be usefully adapted for management education, particularly as an opening exercise on the first day of class. Specifically, this approach includes presenting a carefully chosen problem to the class without preamble, providing students an opportunity to work on the problem, and perhaps most important, conducting a debrief that is focused on schema construction for the course and that identifies and builds on the current level of understanding on the part of the students. The “cold open” allows the instructor to begin to surface concepts that support the construction of schema, which is in turn linked to transfer of learning and the emergence of expertise. This article includes a worked example of “cold open,” including debriefing questions, and additional sample problems for instructors who wish to incorporate this technique into their teaching repertoires.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.341 · 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