Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open educational resources (OER) were first defined by UNESCO in 2002 and have evolved concomitant with changes in digital technologies. These resources, typically openly licensed through Creative Commons, allow for intentional sharing, reusing, revising, or remixing and range from textbooks to more granular resources. The move from a copyright restricted learning environment to an open one has initiated an increase awareness, use, and support for OER. This research explores in-service K-12 educators’ experience of OER in technology-enhanced learning environments and examines teachers’ phenomenology of practice and the phenomena of Hegarty’s 8 attributes of Open Pedagogy (1. participatory technologies; 2. openness and trust; 3. innovation and creativity; 4. connected community; 5. sharing ideas and resources; 6. learner generated; 7. reflective practice; 8. peer review). Using the digital archive of computer mediated communication discussion forums of K-12 in-service teachers enrolled in graduate on-line synchronous courses, the researcher examines the role of openness and trust as part of teachers asking and answering questions of with whom, how, and where to participate in open pedagogy. These questions involve trust and vulnerability among individual educators and aspects of school hierarchies, curricular resources, and collegial practices.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".