MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887913885 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v7n4p55

Factors Supporting and Preventing Academics from Becoming Lifelong Learners

2018· article· en· W2887913885 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Professional Development and Motivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLifelong learningFeelingVariety (cybernetics)Order (exchange)PsychologyPedagogyMedical educationPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial psychologyBusinessMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In present circumstances, it has become inevitable for individuals to continue obtaining new information and skills throughout their lives. Having learned to learn and information literate individuals are able to meet their learning needs both in career and personal terms by themselves. The important aspect is the individual feels the need to learn and knows how and where to meet these needs. Feeling those can be considered as the basic requirement to make efforts in order to meet them. However, the surrounding circumstances may support or prevent meeting these needs. Therefore, the main questions to be answered in this study are as follows: (1) what are the factors supporting academics, holding office in the faculty of education, to become lifelong learners? and (2) what are the factors preventing academics, holding office in the faculty of education, from becoming lifelong learners? Since the situation of being a lifelong learner will be examined by being based on the present working conditions, the study is designed as embedded multiple case study. It is endeavored to ensure maximum variety in the study group by taking into account the various academic titles, gender and fields of study. The interview form is developed based on the literature and revised according to the opinions of specialists. The data has been collected by having individual interviews with academics and a content analysis has been performed. In conclusion of the analysis performed, such themes as the need to become lifelong learners, the factors supporting to become lifelong learners and the factors preventing from becoming lifelong learners have been reached.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.346 · 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