Collaborative Knowledge Building using Microsoft SharePoint
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
An effective computer-based collaborative knowledge building platform must support collaborative activities such as articulating perspectives, debating alternative viewpoints, clarifying meanings, linking ideas, building consensus, and reflecting on learning. The current study reports findings of a qualitative study that was conducted to understand the effectiveness of Microsoft SharePoint as a collaboration platform for engineering students’ group projects. Students reported that SharePoint had most of the affordances they would desire in an ‘ideal’ collaborative learning platform. Students also perceived training and guidance in the use of SharePoint as important and integral to their success and overall experience of SharePoint. The study concludes with recommendations instructors who use group projects for assessments, including (1) the need to provide and encourage the use of well-integrated platforms, (2) the need to set explicit standards for providing peer feedback and (3) the need to provide guidance and support for students using collaborative learning platforms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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