MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808635561 · doi:10.1145/3209635.3209649

Playing to Your Strengths

2018· article· en· W2808635561 on OpenAlexaff
Meghan Allen, Steven A. Wolfman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological and Educational Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppreciative inquiryStrengths and weaknessesComputer scienceQualitative researchBest practiceMathematics educationPedagogyPsychologySociologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this workshop, adapted from our SIGCSE 2018 workshop [1], we as a group will use Appreciative Inquiry [2] (AI) techniques to explore and develop our strengths as computer science educators. Participants will gain appreciation for their strengths as an educator, with concrete plans for building on these strengths. They will also learn about Appreciative Inquiry as a qualitative research methodology that is complementary to more common computer science research methodologies, and that they can apply to evaluate and improve their own educational practice.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.009
Scholarly communication0.0190.018
Open science0.0030.019
Research integrity0.0080.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.055

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.344 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations46
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychological and Educational Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207